M.Chandramohan v. Secretary to Government, Home (Transport II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 15-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.5937 of 2007(O.A.No.863 of 2001)M.Chandramohan.. Petitioner.Versus1.Secretary to Government,Home (Transport II) Department,Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009.2.Transport Commissioner,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005... Respondents.Prayer: Original Application No.364 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.2844 of 2007,seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordsof the second respondent herein regarding the punishment of stoppageof increment for a period of one year without cumulative effectpassed in his Proceedings R.No.6685/T3/94(EO No.58/99) dated 9.2.99and the consequential order passed by the first respondent herein inthe G.O.(D) No.1018, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 9.11.2000 andquash the same with all consequential benefits such as promotion,seniority etc., and other monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.RaviFor Respondents : Ms.S.Anitha Government AdvocateO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner had joined in service in the TransportDepartment, as Motor vehicles Inspector Grade-II, on 26.9.1977. Hewas promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I, in the year 1984.He was due for promotion as a Regional Transport Officer during theyears 1995-1996. While so, the Transport Commissioner, the secondrespondent herein, had issued a charge memo in his LetterNo.6685/T3/94, dated 18.2.1994, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil NaduCivil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Thecharges framed against the petitioner were as follows:"1. that you have not intimated the fact that your sonArun has joined as partner of Uma Textiles though he isaged only two years.2. that you have not intimated the fact that your wifeis a partner in the Rajalakshmi Transport Service asrequired under Section 8(1)(b) of the Government ServantsConduct Rules, 1973." 3. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 31.3.1995,denying the charges levelled against him. Further, the petitioner hadalso submitted another explanation to the Deputy TransportCommissioner, Madurai, on 20.6.1996, on the basis of G.O.3158, dated7.9.1974. However, an enquiry officer had been appointed to conductan enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner.The enquiry officer had concluded his enquiry, on 30.6.1996, and hehad submitted his enquiry report. On 22.10.1996, the TransportCommissioner, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officerhad directed the petitioner to submit a further explanation on theenquiry report. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on6.1.1997. On 25.2.1997, the Transport Commissioner had ordered afresh oral enquiry, following the procedures contemplated under Rule17(b). The petitioner had participated in the oral enquiry and he haddefended himself against the charges levelled against him. Based onthe findings of the enquiry officer, the Transport Commissioner hadpassed final orders, on 9.2.1999, dropping the first charge framedagainst the petitioner and had imposed the punishment of stoppage ofincrement for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, on thepetitioner, based on the second charge. Due to the punishment imposedon the petitioner, he had been denied the promotion as RegionalTransport Officer, from the year 1995 upto the year 2000. Aggrievedby the punishment imposed on the petitioner, he had preferred anappeal to the Government, on 7.4.1999. However, the Government hadrejected the appeal, by an order in G.O.(D) No.1018, dated 9.11.2000,and it had confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner by theTransport Commissioner. Since the order of the Government is a non-speaking order, it is liable to be quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents theaverments and allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. Ithas been stated that based on the charges levelled against thepetitioner an enquiry had been conducted by affording an opportunityto the petitioner to put forth his case. Based on the enquiry report,the petitioner had submitted his explanations. Since the TransportCommissioner, the second respondent herein, had found that the secondcharge levelled against the petitioner had been proved, he hadimposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of oneyear, without cumulative effect, on the petitioner. The appeal filedby the petitioner to the first respondent had been dismissed. 5. It has been further stated that the enquiry conducted againstthe petitioner was in accordance with the procedures established bylaw, and it was conducted in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to putforth his case. However, as the second charge had been found to beproved he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of incrementfor one year, without cumulative effect, by the second respondent.The appellate order of the first respondent confirming the order ofthe second respondent is in accordance with law. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerhad raised various grounds while contending that the impugned ordersof the respondents are arbitrary, illegal and void, he had submittedthat it would suffice if this Court is pleased to set aside the orderof the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, dated9.11.2000, confirming the order of the second respondent, imposingthe punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, withoutcumulative effect, as it is a non-speaking order and if the matter isremitted back to the first respondent to pass an order, afresh, onmerits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has noobjection for this Court passing such an order. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is seenthat the appellate order of the first respondent, dated 9.11.2000, isa non-speaking order. No reasons have been given by the firstrespondent while passing the said order. The first respondent hadpassed the order in G.O.(D) No.1018, Home (Transport-II) Department,dated 9.11.2000, only on the basis of the opinion of the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission. However, no reasons have been given based https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on which the said order had been passed. Since it is a non-speakingorder, it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the firstrespondent to pass orders, afresh, on the appeal of the firstrespondent, dated 7.4.1999, on merits and in accordance with law,within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. cshSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.Secretary to Government, Home (Transport II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Ravi Advocate SR 31441/09.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Advocate SR.31922/09.Writ Petition No.5937 of 2007RSI(CO)EU 31.7.2009.