Madras High Court
N.Selvamani vs The Transport Commissioner on 18 August, 2022
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
N.Selvamani ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
..Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the respondent herein in his Pro.R.No.63158/VB2/2010 dated
30.06.2015 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years
with cumulative effect and Quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The order of punishment dated 30.06.2015, imposing the penalty of
stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect on the writ
petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
2. The writ petitioner joined the services as Typist on 19.10.1994 in
Transport Department. He was promoted to the post of Assistant on
19.08.1998 and to the post of Superintendent on 31.01.2010. The petitioner
was due for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-
Technical) for the year 2012-13. While so, a charge memorandum was
issued in T.D.P Case No.34 of 2010. The charge against the writ petitioner
reads as under:
CHARGE
“While you (A.O-1) Thiru.A.Devadoss, MV2 (NT), you
(A.O-2) Thiru.N.Selvamani, Assistant and you (A.O-3)
Thiru.M.Thulasingam, Office Assistant were on duty, during
the surprise check conducted on 24.10.2008 between 04.45
hrs and 07.15 hrs at the Transport Department Checkpost
(Outgoing) at Sipcot, Hosur, you were found responsible for
the presence of unaccounted and unclaimed amount of
Rs.1,07,330/- found scattered beneath a rack in the Record
room, Rs.1,770 found in a green plastic bucket adjacent to the
seat of Thiru.A.Devadoss, MV1, (A.O-1). Thus, totally a sum of
Rs.1,09,100/-
The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings adjudicated
the issues by affording opportunity to the parties and
submitted its report, holding that the charges are held proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
Accepting the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority
imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for three years
with cumulative effect.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
entire unaccounted money was recovered near the table of the Motor Vehicle
Inspector (NT) Thiru.A.Devadoss, who had expired before passing final
orders. Thiru.M.Thulasingam, Office Assistant, who is alleged to have the
knowledge of the unaccounted money, had also expired before the enquiry
was concluded. Thus, the petitioner is to be exonerated on the ground that
no unaccounted money was recovered from his table.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.912 of 2008 dated 05.01.2009 and
contended that once the unaccounted money was not recovered from the
delinquent official, then the findings of the enquiry officer in this regard is to
be held as untenable. The charge itself is that unaccounted money was
recovered in a green plastic bucket adjacent to the seat of Thiru.A.Devadoss,
MV1, (A.O-1) and during the enquiry, there was no evidence to establish
that the unaccounted money was recovered from the writ petitioner or in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
table. Relying on the said statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated that on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In
view of the punishment imposed, the petitioner lost his opportunity for
further promotion with reference to the panel of the year 2012-13.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondent objected the said contentions by stating that the appropriate
authority conducted surprise check in the check post (outgoing) SIPCOT,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District on 24.10.2008. Thiru.A.Devadoss, Motor
Vehicle Inspector (NT), Tr.N.Selvamani, Assistant and Tr.M.Thulasingam,
Office Assistant, Multipurpose Motor Vehicle Check post, Outward Sipcot,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District were the officials on duty during the surprise
check and they were found responsible for the presence of unaccounted and
unclaimed amount of Rs.1,07,330/- scattered beneath a rack in the record
room, Rs.1,770/- was found in a green Plastic bucket adjacent to the seat of
Tr.A.Devadoss, MVI (NT), thus totally a sum of Rs.1,09,100/- was seized
during the surprise check, construed as dishonest money earned through
official misconduct. The Government have directed the Commissioner for
Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore to conduct an inquiry into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
allegations against the accused officers under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
Discipline and Appeal Rules. Accordingly, charges were framed in
T.D.P.Case No.34/2010. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings
elaborately considered the documents and evidences and arrived a
conclusion that the charge against the writ petitioner is held proved. Based
on the proved charges, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of
stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Thus, the writ
petition is to be rejected.
6. Perusal of the enquiry report, the same reveals that the charge
against the deceased accused officers were dropped. 10 Witnesses were
examined and 13 documents were filed by the prosecution side. The
Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings considered the facts and circumstances
with reference to the allegations of possession of dishonest money and made
a finding that charge is held proved.
7. The finding of fact by the Tribunal deserves no further interference
as there is no contradictions and the depositions of the witnesses were also
considered cogently. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
submission that there is a doubt raised by the writ petitioner that the
unaccounted money was not found in the table of the writ petitioner.
However, the other circumstantial events and the depositions of the
witnesses and the place in which the unaccounted money was recovered
during the inspection were elaborately considered by the Tribunal and
therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the findings
arrived by the Tribunal.
8. The High Court in exercise of the powers of the judicial review,
need not interfere with the findings of the Tribunal for disciplinary
proceedings, unless there is a gross violations of the procedures or there is a
incriminating evidences to interfere with such findings. The Court in exercise
of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary
enquiry have been observed;
(iv) the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity;
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
9. In this context, the principles of natural justice had been followed in
the case and an opportunity was afforded to the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner participated in the process of enquiry proceedings before the
Tribunal and defended his case. Thus, there is no violation of principles of
natural justice. The findings of misconduct, no doubt, is based on some
evidences and as far as the departmental disciplinary proceedings are
concerned, preponderance of probabilities are enough to form an opinion.
The standard of proof required to convict a person in a criminal case need
not be the yardstick to be adopted in departmental disciplinary proceedings.
The allegations against the writ petitioner is serious and corruption charges.
Unaccounted money was recovered and the Tribunal conducted an enquiry
by following the procedures as contemplated. It was a trial natured enquiry
and witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Thus, the findings of the
Tribunal is undoubtedly based on some evidences and thus, there is no
infirmity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
10. The procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal
rules are also followed by the authorities in the present case. There is no
procedural violations which could be traceable in respect of the disciplinary
proceedings conducted and under these circumstances, this Court is of an
opinion that the proportionality is also to be considered.
11. The charge against the writ petitioner is grave in nature. It is a
corruption allegation. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings conducted
an enquiry and the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with
cumulative effect alone is imposed. Such a punishment cannot be construed
as disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges and in fact, this
Court is of an opinion that the disciplinary authority himself taken a lenient
view, while imposing such a punishment. That being the factum, there is no
reason whatsoever to interfere with the quantum of punishment and thus, the
petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
18.08.2022
(½)
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.23872 of 2015
18.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
