S.Rajaji @ Rajamani vs The Chief Engineer ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 23187 Mad

                                                                                     W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED: 26.11.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                         and
                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                   W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

                S.Rajaji @ Rajamani                                     .. Appellant/Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                1.The Chief Engineer (Distribution)
                  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                  Tirunelveli Electricity Region,
                  Tirunelveli-627 011.

                2.The Superintending Engineer,
                  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                  Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle,
                  Tirunelveli-627 011.                                  .. Respondents/Respondents

                Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Act, praying
                this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.10147 of
                2009 dated 09.02.2021.


                                  For Appellants               : Mr.T.Lajapathiroy

                                  For Respondents              : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran
                                                                 Standing Counsel




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/11
                                                                                   W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021


                                                        JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order,

dated 09.02.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.10147 of 2009.

2.The case of the appellant is that he was engaged as contract labour

in various sections under Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in the year 1983

onwards and he is trained in installation of Poles, Extension of L.T Line and

H.T Line with Transformer Structure works. Subsequently, due to Khalid

Commission, the respondents decided to regularize the services of the Contract

Labour and as such, the petitioner received a call letter for certificate

verification and he was appointed as Helper in the year 1998 and thereafter he

was issued a charge memo for the allegation of impersonation and also gave a

false information and submitted a false certificate. After completing the

formalities, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and on completion of enquiry, a

report was filed, in which, stating that the charges against the appellant were

proved and the same was placed before the disciplinary authority, viz, the

second respondent. The second respondent after serving the enquiry report and

called for explanation. On receipt of such report, the appellant submitted his

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

explanation before the disciplinary authority and not satisfying with the

explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of

increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellant had filed an appeal before the first respondent. After affording an

opportunity to the appellant, the first respondent/appellate authority has

enhanced the punishment imposed on the appellant that demotion to the initial

post of Field Helper for three years in the lowest scale of pay with cumulative

effect from 15.05.2008. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent/appellate

authority, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. The Writ Court

also dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the punishment imposed by the

appellate authority. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that

on completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report

before the disciplinary authority viz., the second respondent. Though the

appellant has submitted his explanation, the disciplinary authority has not

considered the same and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for

one year with cumulative effect. Challenging the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority/second respondent, the appellant has filed an appeal

before the appellate authority/first respondent, in which, the appellate authority

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

has enhanced the punishment of demotion to the initial post of Field Helper for

three years in the lowest scale of pay with effect from 15.05.2008, is highly

arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the procedure. The learned counsel would

further submit that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has not

concealed any material facts and only he received a second call letter dated

31.01.1998 issued to him to attend the interview on 04.02.1998 and after

verifying his original certificates and the duel name certificate dated

24.07.1995 issued by the Tahsildar by the duly constituted Selection

Committee, the appointment order was issued on 20.03.1998. The Selection

Committee which was the competent authority to ascertain the veracity of the

candidate as per the guidelines issued for this purpose in January 1998 and

appointment order was issued on 17.04.1998 with direction to correct his name

as S.Rajaji alias S.Rajamani. Therefore, he has not committed any misconduct

as contemplated under the Standing Order.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted

that since the disciplinary authority found that the charges levelled against the

appellant were proved, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of

stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. When the appellant

challenged the order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

the appellate authority failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant

and enhanced the punishment of demotion to the initial post of Field Helper for

three years in the lowest scale of pay with effect from 15.05.2008. Aggrieved

by the said order, the appellant has filed a writ petition before this Court. The

Writ Court has without considering the scope and power of the appellate

authority dismissed the writ petition. Once the disciplinary authority imposed

the punishment, the appellate authority can set aside or can reduce or can

uphold the punishment, but cannot award a higher punishment than the

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. More so, the appellate

authority cannot give double punishment. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the

order of the Writ Court.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit

that the charges levelled against the appellant are grave in nature and he

impersonated and obtained an appointment and also he made a false

information and filed a document which was not given by the competent

authority. Therefore, the charges levelled against the appellant were proved and

the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report before the disciplinary authority.

The appellant was issued a second show cause notice and not satisfying with

his explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The appellant

approached the appellate authority/first respondent a fact finding authority, who

independently has considered the matter and found that by impersonation the

appellant got employment, thereby deprived the other person to get

employment. The appellant was issued second show cause notice regarding

enhancement of punishment proposed to be imposed after receiving further

representation considered and rejected the same. The appellate authority was of

the opinion that the appellant deserves to be removed from the service.

However, considering the length of the service, the appellate authority imposed

the punishment of demotion to the initial post of the appellant for three years in

the lowest scale of pay with cumulative effect from 15.05.2008. Challenging

the same, the appellant has filed a writ petition before this Court. The Writ

Court, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the service record of the

appellant, has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the

appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.Heard Mr.T.Lajapathiroy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr.T.Sakthikumaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents and perused the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

7.Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Helper on 20.03.1998

and subsequently, he was served with a charge memo on 30.12.2006 and on

receipt of the said charge memo, Enquiry Officer was appointed. After

completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charges levelled

against the appellant were proved and the enquiry report was placed before the

disciplinary authority/second respondent. The second respondent furnishing the

copies of the enquiry report to the appellant and he was issued second show

cause notice. After receiving further explanation, considering the enquiry

report and further explanation given by the appellant, the disciplinary authority

imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, with

cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the appellant filed an appeal before

the appellate authority/first respondent. The first respondent, after hearing the

parties and also considering the materials, though found that the appeal

deserves to be dismissed, considering the length of service he enhanced the

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority into demotion to the initial

post of Field Officer for three years in the lowest scale of pay, with cumulative

effect from 15.05.2008. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed the writ

petition. Before the Writ Court, the appellant raised two points that he has not

committed any offence and he has not concealed any material facts and the

selection committee and the Second Respondent themselves have accepted the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

dual name certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the disciplinary authority and

the appellate authority had failed to note that the appellant cannot be imposed

with such a larger punishment. Another point is that the appellate authority has

no power to enhance the punishment. The Writ Court, considering the enquiry

report and also the award of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority as well as the appellate authority, considering the grave nature of the

misconduct, dismissed the writ petition.

8.Admittedly, there is no procedural violation and the disciplinary

authority as well as the appellate authority have followed the procedure

meticulously and all the opportunities have been given to the appellant and on

every stage, show cause notice was issued and further explanation also

received. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are fact finding

authority and after giving due care to the entire materials and the gravity of

charges, imposed the punishment, the Writ Court cannot sit under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India and re-write the entire facts. The Writ Court has to

consider only if there is any procedural violation or any violation of principles

of natural justice or violation of law or rules in appreciation of any evidence or

materials or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In the absence of

above, the Writ Court could not interfere with the orders of the Departmental

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

Authorities.

9.The main point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the appellate authority, who has enhanced the punishment, travelled beyond

the scope and object of the charges and mere reading of the entire materials,

which clearly shows that the appellant has impersonated and also concealed the

material facts and therefore, the enquiry officer found that the charges levelled

against the appellant were proved. The appellate authority observed that the

appellant deserves to be removed from service and considering the length of

service put by him, only enhanced the punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority into demotion to the initial post of the appellannt for three years in the

lowest scale of pay with cumulative effect from 15.05.2008. A reading of the

Standing Orders in Clauses 31 & 32, this Court does not find any violation

from the procedures of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate

authority and there is no prohibition to enhance the punishment by the appellate

authority. As per Clause 32(iv) of the Standing Orders, the only condition is

“no punishment shall be imposed unless the workman is informed in writing of

the alleged misconduct”. The said procedure was duly complied with in the

departmental proceedings. Therefore, there is no violation of the Standing

Orders. This Court does not find any merit in the appeal and hence, the writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(P.S.N.J.,) (P.V.J.,) 26.11.2021

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J., and P.VELMURUGAN,J., Ns

W.A.(MD).No.1798 of 2021

26.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis