G.Karunakaran v. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 05-08-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.888 of 2006(O.A.No.1789 of 2001) andWrit Petition No.899 of 2006(O.A.No.129 of 2001)G.Karunakaran.. Petitioner in both the writ petitions VersusThe Secretary to Government,Municipal Administration and WaterSupply Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9... Respondent in both the writ petitionsPrayer in W.P.No.888 of 2006: Petition filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with G.O.(Pathandu) No.295, Municipal Administration and Water Supply(Na.Pa.1) Department, dated 1.7.1999 and G.O.(D) No.264, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, dated 10.7.2002,passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, directthe respondent to pay all consequential benefits. Prayer in W.P.No.899 of 2006: Petition filed seeking for a writ ofMandamus, directing the respondent to include the petitioner's namein the panel for promotion as Executive Engineer for the year 1999-2000 and promote him as Executive Engineer on par with juniorswithout reference to the punishment of stoppage of increment passedby the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.295, Municipal Administration andWater Supply Department, dated 1.7.99. For Petitioner : Mr.G.ElanchezhiyanFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDERHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer,Town Panchayat, in Tiruvallur District. While he was working as aMunicipal Engineer he was served with a charge memo, by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, in MemoNo.66685/96/C2, dated 27.10.1996. After receiving the charge memo,the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the respondent, on30.12.1996. An enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct anenquiry, with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner.The enquiry officer had not examined any of the official witnessesand no document had been marked, as exhibit. The enquiry had beenconducted, without following the procedures established by law. Oncompletion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had given his findingstating that, out of the twelve charges levelled against thepetitioner, Charge Nos.4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, had been proved. 3. Based on the enquiry report, the punishing authority hadissued a memo to the petitioner, along with the enquiry report. Thepetitioner had submitted his explanation with regard to the enquiryreport. Thereafter, a show cause notice had been issued to thepetitioner to offer his explanation, with regard to the proposedpenalty of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulativeeffect. The petitioner had submitted his explanation with regard tothe penalty proposed. Without considering the explanation submittedby the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of increment for oneyear, with cumulative effect, had been imposed on the petitioner,vide Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.295, Municipal Administration andWater Supply Department, dated 1.7.1999. Aggrieved by the order ofthe respondent, dated 1.7.1999, the petitioner had preferred a reviewpetition, on 10.11.1999, which is still pending before theGovernment.4. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner is that the punishment of stoppage of incrementfor one year, with cumulative effect, passed by the respondent, isarbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of naturaljustice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Theenquiry officer had not conducted the enquiry, in accordance with theprocedures established by law. No document had been marked and nowitness was examined during the enquiry. However, the enquiry officerhad come to the conclusion that the charges in Charge Nos.4, 7, 8, 9,11 and 12 had been proved. Further, the enquiry officer had notallowed the petitioner to examine his own witness. The explanationssubmitted by the petitioner had not been considered, either by theenquiry officer or by the punishing authority. In such circumstances,the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent hadsubmitted that a Government Order, in G.O.(D) No.264, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, dated 10.7.2002,had been issued, rejecting the review petition filed by thepetitioner against the punishment of stoppage of increment for oneyear, with cumulative effect. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadsubmitted that the order, dated 10.7.2002, issued in G.O.(D) No.264,Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, is liableto be set aside, as it does not give any reason to justify the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned order of the respondent, imposing the punishment on thepetitioner. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Government Order, in G.O.(D)No.264, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department,dated 10.7.2002, are as follows:"3. Aggrieved by the above orders, Thiru.G.Karunagaranhas submitted his appeal petition through Commissioner ofMunicipal Administration. The appeal has been taken up asreview petition, since final orders on the disciplinaryaction has been passed by the Government.4. In his review petition Thiru.G.Karunagaram has notsubstantiated valid reasons and evidences against thefindings of the Enquiry officer. The accused officer hasrepeated whatever he had stated in his earlier replies tothe charge memo and has not adduced any valid reasonsagainst the findings of the Enquiry Officer.5. The review petition of Thiru.G.Karunagaran has beenexamined carefully and independently with reference to therelevant records. Since the appellant has not adduced duefresh grounds for acquitting him of the charges, theGovernment have decided to reject the review petition andhave ordered accordingly."7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, it is clearthat the respondent had passed an order, dated 10.7.2002, in G.O.(D)No.264, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department,rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. No reasonshave been given by the respondent for rejecting the review petitionof the petitioner, except saying that the petitioner has notsubstantiated his claims in the review petition, with valid reasonsand evidence. Since the order, dated 10.7.2002, is a non-speakingorder, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside and thematter is remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders,on merits and in accordance with law, considering the grounds raisedby the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is orderedaccordingly.8. In view of the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.888 of2006, the writ petition in W.P.No.899 of 2006 stands closed. However,it is would be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter, withregard to his promotion, before the authorities concerned, seekingappropriate reliefs, as and when final orders are passed quashing thecharges levelled against the petitioner.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cshToThe Secretary to Government,Municipal Administration and WaterSupply Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.36098+ 1 cc to G.Elanchezhiyan,Advocate,SR.36270Writ Petition No.888 and 899 of 2006PKB(CO)PMK/26.8.09