Madras High Court
C.Dhasaratharajan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 22 October, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
C.Dhasaratharajan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented
by Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road, Chennai - 600 003.
3.Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings
through its Commissioner,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent, dated
26.05.2014 made in G.O.(D)No.133, Public Works (E1) Department and
to quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and in consequence to
direct the respondents to disburse the petitioner's pension benefits by
calculating his service, promotion and other service benefits.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Suriyanarayan
For R-1 and R-3 :Mr.Linga Durai
Government Advocate
For R-2 : Mr.K.K.Senthil
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of first respondent, dated
26.05.2014, and to direct the respondents to disburse the petitioner's
pensionary benefits. By the impugned order, the first respondent
imposed a punishment of withholding pension at rate of Rs.4,850/- per
month for a period of three years.
2.Heard Mr.R.Suriyanarayan, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.Linga Durai, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the second respondent.
3.While the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in
the Public Works Department (Construction and Maintenance) Division
at Dindigul, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner for demanding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
and accepting bribe to register the name of individual as a Contractor.
Based on the complaint, the Director of Vigilance Department laid a trap.
Based on the complaint lodged by the Vigilance Department, a criminal
case was also registered in crime No.1 of 2006 and it is not known as to
whether the criminal case has been prosecuted further or not. However,
pursuant to the charge memo issued by the third respondent, disciplinary
proceedings went on. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the third
respondent, the first respondent passed the impugned order imposing the
punishment of withholding of pension at the rate of Rs.4,850/- per month
for three years. Challenging the same, the above Writ Petition is filed.
4.It is the case of the petitioner that his explanation to the enquiry
report was not considered by the first respondent while imposing the
punishment and that the first respondent failed to furnish the remarks
obtained from the second respondent which was also relied upon to
impose the punishment.
5.Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised
several grounds attacking the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
conclusions, this Court is convinced that the impugned order is vitiated,
as there was total non application of mind with regard to the further
representation of the Delinquent Officer on the findings of the third
respondent. After extracting the charges, the defence statement of the
petitioner, findings of the second respondent and the further
representation of the petitioner on the findings of third respondent, the
first respondent has passed the impugned order. The operative portion of
the impugned order of first respondent reads as follows:
“5.The Government have carefully and independently
examined the charge framed against Thiru.C.Dhasaatharajan,
formerly Executive Engineer, Public Works Department,
defence statement of the delinquent officer, findings of the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai, and further
representation of the delinquent officer on the findings of the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai, in detail and
decided to confirm the provisional conclusion holding the
charge as proved against him. The Government, therefore,
proposed to impose the punishment of withholding of pension
at the rate of Rs.4,850/- (Rupees four thousand eight hunder
and fifty only) per month (being the one-third value of pension)
for a period of three years on Thiru.C.Dhasaratharajan,
Executive Engineer (retired), Public Works Department, for the
charge held proved against him.
6.In the Government letter ninth read above, a consent
letter under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, was issued to
Thiru.C.Dhasaratharajan, Executive Engineer (retired), Public
Works Department, asking him to state specifically as to
whether he accepts the proposed punishment of pension cut or
not. Thiru.C.Dhasaratharajan, Executive Engineer (retired),
Public Works Department, in the letter tenth read aboe, refused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
to accept the provisional conclusion of the Government.
Hence, the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission on the provisional conclusion of the Government
were called for under Regulation 18(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 in the
Government letter eleaventh read above.
7.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the
letter twelth read above stated that the provisional conclusion
of the Government was in order and advised the Government
to go ahead with the provisional conclusion.
8.The Government, after careful and independent
examination of the case again with the relevant records along
with the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
have decided to confirm the provisional conclusion to impose
the punishment of withholding of pension at the rate of Rs.
4,850/- (Rupees four thousand eight hundred and fifty only)
per month (being the one-third value of pension), for a period
of three years on Thiru.C.Dhasaratharajan, Executive
Engineer (retired), Public Works Department. Accordingly, the
Government order that the punishment of withholding of
pension at the rate of Rs.4,850/- (Rupees four thousand eight
hundred and fifty only) per month (being the one-third value of
pension), for a period of three years be imposed on
Thiru.C.Dhasaratharajan, Executive Engineer (retired), Public
Works Department, for the chanrge held proved against him.
9.A copy of the letter of the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission twelth read above is communicated to
Thiru.C.Dhasaratharajan, Executive Engineer (retired), Public
Works Department, along with the order.”
6.From the impugned order, it is seen that the first respondent
admitted that the letter of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which
was relied upon by the first respondent was communicated to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
petitioner only along with the impugned order. When the first respondent
decided to get the views of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and
to rely upon the same for passing an order of punishment, it is expected
that the views of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission should be
served to the petitioner for getting his remarks and the conclusion should
be after considering the remarks of the petitioner, if any.
7.Secondly, the points raised by the petitioner after receiving the
findings of the third respondent cannot be ignored in this case. It is
admitted that the criminal case was not prosecuted further. Similarly, the
Officials have recorded that no colour change was found when the hands
of the petitioner were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution at the
time when the vigilance team laid the trap. When serious issues were
raised by the petitioner, it is unfortunate to notice that the first respondent
did not consider any of the points raised by the petitioner in his further
representation after getting the enquiry report.
8.The learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, to sustain his arguments
that the orders passed by the second and first respondent without
referring or assigning reasons cannot be sustained. The relevant portion
of the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reads as follows:
“23.Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the
appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders
passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons
should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the
confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the
order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-
same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The
materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be
proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is
legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural
justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely
ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have
been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer
apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well
known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to
be a substitute for legal proof.”
9.Relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court,
this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is vitiated for
violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is
quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh
if necessary after passing appropriate order under Pension Rules to keep
alive the disciplinary proceedings under the Pension Rules. Accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 22.10.2021
Internet :Yes
tmg/cmr
To
1. Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu ,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings
through its Commissioner, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
tmg/cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.10318 of 2014
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
