Madras High Court
A.Anthoni Dass vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 25 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
A.Anthoni Dass : Appellant
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumers Production Department,
Food and Consumers Production Department,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 10.
3.The Registrar of Co-operation Societies,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tiruchirappalli 600 020.
5.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tiruchirappalli 600 020. : Respondents
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the
order dated 18.08.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.15271 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Mr.B.Bhagavathi
Government Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the
learned Single Judge, who while upholding the impugned order, dismissed the writ
petition filed.
2.The appellant herein was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and he
conducted an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies
Act, 1983, over the illegality committed in the transactions of a Co-operative
society. Charge against the appellant is that he could not complete the enquiry at
the first instance and thereafter, extension of time was given. The said order of
extension made it clear that the appellant will have to complete the enquiry, failing
which, departmental proceedings would be initiated. The appellant filed a report
stating that inasmuch as the misappropriation alleged involves a number of
transactions pending more than 2 years, it could only be done by a committee
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
appointed. Upon receiving the aforesaid report, departmental proceedings were
initiated and a punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed for a period of
one year with cumulative effect. The appeal filed also was dismissed. The learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the report being incomplete
and perfunctory and the punishment cannot be interfered with.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2207) 4 SCC 566 in the case of
Inspector Prem Chand Vs., Government of NCT of Delhi and others and
submitted that mere negligence simpliciter cannot be termed as a misconduct. It is
not as if the appellant gave a partial report. He has stated the reason for not
proceeding further. This may be an error of judgment, but certainly not a ground
for initiating action.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that inasmuch as enquiry was conducted, after framing charges, coupled
with the admitted fact of not filing of the complete report, no interference is
required in the order of the learned Single Judge.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
5.In the report itself, the appellant has stated the reason for filing
incomplete report. There is nothing to hold that the reasons are not correct.
Merely because the time was extended for the conclusion of the enquiry,
departmental proceedings cannot be initiated and concluded against an officer.
Therefore, until and unless a specific finding is given that the enquiry has not been
completed deliberately, the appellant cannot be made to suffer. Even otherwise, we
do not find any wilful dereliction of duty by the appellant. There is no misconduct
per se, which is involved, as it may be an error of judgment. There is no dispute
of fact with respect to the incomplete report . However, the issue is with respect to
the disability of the enquiry officer in preparing the report, particularly, in the light
of the issue involved.
6.Thus, in the light of the above discussions, we are constrained to hold that
the impugned order passed cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In our
considered view, the learned single judge is not correct in upholding the impugned
orders.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
7.In the light of the above discussions, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No
costs.
Index : Yes / No [M.M.S.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
Internet : Yes 25.02.2021
rmk
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
rmk
W.A.(MD)No.674 of 2018
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
