Madras High Court
The Agriculture Production Commission ... vs R.Narayanasamy on 11 December, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD).No.720 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD).No.720 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4228 of 2020
1.The Agriculture Production Commission and
Principal Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Tallakulam,
Madurai - 625 002.
4.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Ramanathapuram. .. Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
R.Narayanasamy .. Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.720 of 2020
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 in W.P.(MD).No.5757 of 2016 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.S.Visvalingam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The intra-Court appeal on hand has been instituted against the order
dated 17.03.2020 passed in W.P.(MD).No.5757 of 2016.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner is presently serving as Agricultural
Officer, Bio Production Lab, Melur, Madurai District under the control of
the Joint Director of Agriculture, Madurai. While he was serving as
Agricultural Development Officer, Kamuthi, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him vide charge memo dated 11.02.2009 for the alleged
lack of supervision in the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. While the respondent/writ petitioner was holding the additional
charge of the post of Agricultural Officer, Kamuthi, a charge memo was
issued against the respondent/writ petitioner and the explanation submitted
by him was not accepted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The
Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the
delinquent officer and submitted his report. No doubt, the charges are
serious in nature. The Enquiry Officer also held that the charges against the
respondent are proved. Along with the copy of the enquiry report, second
show cause notice was issued to the delinquent officer seeking his further
explanation/objections on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The
respondent submitted his objections and accepting the Enquiry Officer's
findings, the Government issued the impugned order imposing the penalty
of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect in G.O.
(3D)No.01, Agriculture Department, dated 05.01.2016.
4. The respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the said order and
the learned Single Judge made an observation that the Government has not
assigned any reason for imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for one year without cumulative effect. Since no reasons are assigned in the
order of punishment, the learned Single Judge had set aside the impugned
order and directed the appellants to promote the writ petitioner on par with
his immediate junior. Challenging the same, the State preferred the present
Writ Appeal.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants
mainly contended that the co-delinquents were already imposed with the
punishment. They have not filed any Writ Petition. In the present case, the
Government has considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report
and relying on the said findings, the punishment of stoppage of increment
for one year without cumulative effect was imposed. Therefore, further
reasons are unnecessary. The findings of the Enquiry Officer would be
sufficient to form a final opinion and thus, the Writ Petition ought to have
been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said contention
by stating that reasons are live link to an order passed by the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Mere extraction of the
findings of the Enquiry Officer would be insufficient. Whether the findings
are accepted or not and the reasons for acceptance also must be stated in the
order of punishment, which is missing and therefore, the learned Single
Judge is right in setting aside the order of punishment.
7. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 12 of the order impugned
has stated that the impugned order shows that the disciplinary authority,
only after referring to the report of the Enquiry Officer, has imposed
punishment without assigning any reason. The explanations given by the
writ petitioner to the report of the Enquiry Officer has been rejected merely
stating that there is no new reason assigned. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge formed an opinion that the further objections submitted by the writ
petitioner on the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not considered by the
Government while passing the final order and therefore, set aside the order
of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative
effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. No doubt, perusal of the order of punishment would reveal that the
Government has not given any finding in respect of the further objections
submitted by the writ petitioner on the findings of the enquiry report. Mere
extraction of the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report would be
insufficient and the further objections submitted by the delinquent officer is
to be considered and a finding is to be made for arriving at a conclusion and
for imposing punishment so as to form an opinion whether the punishment
is in commensuration with the charges proved or not.
9. In view of the fact that the element of reasoning, which is required,
is missing, we are inclined to remand the matter back. However, we are not
agreeing with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the order
impugned, since in such circumstances, the matter is to be remanded back
for re-consideration by the competent authority, instead of setting aside the
entire order of punishment. This being the principles to be followed, the
order impugned dated 17.03.2020 passed in W.P.(MD).No.5757 of 2016 and
the order of punishment issued by the first appellant in G.O.(3D)No.01,
Agriculture Department, dated 05.01.2016 are set aside. The matter is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
remanded back to the first appellant to re-consider the entire materials
available on record and pass orders on merits and by assigning reasons for
imposing penalty, by considering the further objections submitted by the
writ petitioner, if any. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a
period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
11.12.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
