R. Viswanathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 30-06-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.28420 of 2006(O.A.No.2351 of 1996)R.Viswanathan.. Petitioner.Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Secretary to Government,commercial Taxes and ReligiousEndowments Department,Fort St. George, Madras-600 009. 2.The Inspector General of Registration,Mandaveli, Madras-600 028... Respondents.Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of therespondents one and two in connection with the orders passed bythem in their proceedings G.O.(D).No.439, dated 29.9.95,No.52623/A1/92, dated 23.7.93 and quash the same and direct therespondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all monetaryand service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.R.SingaravelanFor Respondents: Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for therespondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was selected forappointment to the post of Junior Assistant through the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission, on merits, and he had joined service, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.4.58. He was promoted to the post of Assistant, on 1.10.70.Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub Registrar, Grade II,on 1.8.83. Later, he was promoted to the post of Sub Registrar,Grade I in the year 1991 and he had continued in service as suchtill he was compulsorily retired from service, by an order of thesecond respondent, dated 23.7.93. 3. While the petitioner was serving as a Sub Registrar, GradeII, at Cuddalore, a charge memo had been issued alleging certainlapses on his part. The matter was referred to the Tribunal fordisciplinary proceedings at Coimbatore. Based on the findings ofthe Tribunal, the second respondent had passed the impugned ordercompulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The petitionerhas stated that both the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings,Coimbatore, and the second respondent had not taken into accountthe procedural infirmities and the contradictions involved in thematter, before the impugned order had been passed. The evidenceavailable against the petitioner was inadequate for the Tribunal,as well as the second respondent to find that the charges againstthe petitioner were proved. The punishment of compulsory retirementfrom service imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to thecharges levelled against him. Further, the appeal filed by thepetitioner has been rejected by the first respondent by an order inG.O.(D) No.439, Commercial Taxes and Religious EndowmentsDepartment, dated 29.9.95. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the first respondenthad confirmed the order passed by the second respondent without anyindependent application of mind. Even though the order of the firstrespondent, dated 29.9.95, made in G.O.(D) No.439, Commercial Taxesand Religious Endowments Department, is based on the opinionobtained from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, it cannotbe said to be a detailed order covering important issues raised inthe appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed anOriginal Application in O.A.No.2351 of 1996, which has beentransferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28420 of 2006.5. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents till date. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposedon the petitioner by an order made in the appeal filed by him, isdisproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner andthat it is arbitrary, invalid and unsustainable in the eye of lawand therefore, liable to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hasfurther submitted that the impugned order, dated 29.9.95, had beenpassed by the first respondent without applying his mind to thecharges levelled against the petitioner and the explanationsubmitted by him. Though, the said order has been made based on theopinion rendered by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, ithas been passed mechanically, without dealing with the issues,independently, on merits and in accordance with law.8. In such circumstances, it has been prayed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that it would suffice if the order ofthe first respondent, dated 29.9.95, made in G.O.(D) No.439,Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, is set asideand the first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order,considering the issues raised in the appeal and the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal ofthe records available before this Court, it is seen that the orderpassed by the first respondent, on 29.9.95, in the appeal filed bythe petitioner is bereft of reasons. It is clear that the issuesarising for adjudication in the appeal have not been independentlyassessed before the petitioner was imposed with compulsoryretirement. Even though, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissionhas been consulted before the impugned order has been passed by thefirst respondent, the opinion rendered by the Commission could notbe taken to be binding on the first respondent. Hence, the firstrespondent ought to have analysed the facts and circumstances ofthe case in which the issues had arisen for consideration andindependent reasons ought to have been given while passing theimpugned order, dated 29.9.95. While emphasising the importance ofthe need to give reasons, the Supreme Court, in Maharashtra StateBoard of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education V. K.S.Gandhi andothers (1991 (2) SCC 716), had held as follows:"21. Thus it is settled law that the reasons areharbinger between the mind of the maker of the order tothe controversy in question and the decision orconclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances toreach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision orconclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to theconclusion/decision reached. The order when it affectsthe right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of thefact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fairplay requires recording of germane and relevant precisereasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurancethat the authority concerned consciously applied its mindto the facts on record. It also aids the Appellate or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revisional Authority or the supervisory jurisdiction ofthe High Court under Article 226 or the appellatejurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to seewhether the authority concerned acted fairly and justlyto mete out justice to the aggrieved person."10. In such circumstances, the order passed by the firstrespondent, on 29.9.95, is set aside, directing the firstrespondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, onmerits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate ordersthereon, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. The writ petition is partly allowed with the abovedirections. No costs. csh Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To1. The Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu Rep.commercial Taxes and ReligiousEndowments Department,Fort St. George, Madras-600 009. 2.The Inspector General of Registration,Mandaveli, Madras-600 028.1 cc to Mr.R.Singaravelan, Advocate, SR.328211 cc to Government Pleader, SR.33875ku (co)dv/18.7.Writ Petition No.28420 of 2006