Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 801 (MAD)

M. SRIDHAR v. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

2011-02-15

M.JAICHANDREN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. It had been submitted that the petitioner had joined in service, on 23.12.1986, as a Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II. Thereafter, on 27.8.1993, he had been designated, as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I. While so, he was served with a charge memo, on 5.1.2004. Two charges had been levelled against the petitioner relating to the alleged irregularity committed in the registration of the two vehicles. The petitioner had submitted an explanation, dated 12.2.2004, denying the charges and making it clear that there is no obligation on him, under law, to find out whether the vehicles were bona fide in nature and to ensure the correctness of the details relating to the vehicles contained in Form No.20. He had certified with regard to the suitability of the vehicle for the purpose of registration, based on the information provided by the Regional Transport Office, Thiruvallur. Therefore, the petitioner was not liable for the irregularity that had happened in the registration of the vehicles in question. 2. It had been further stated that since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory in nature, an enquiry had been ordered against the petitioner, based on the allegations levelled against him. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Chennai, had been appointed as the enquiry officer. After the enquiry had been conducted, he had submitted his report finding that both the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. Even though the first respondent had decided to accept the findings of the enquiry officer, he had awarded the punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner, by his order, dated 1.3.2005, without any rhyme or reason. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 1.3.2005, is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void in the eye of law. When the enquiry officer had found that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved, it is not open to the first respondent to impose the punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner, without having any proper reason to do so. Due to the punishment of 'censure' awarded against the petitioner, his name had not been included in the panel for promotion, as a Regional Transport Officer, for the year, 2005-2006. 5. Due to the punishment of 'censure' awarded against the petitioner, his name had not been included in the panel for promotion, as a Regional Transport Officer, for the year, 2005-2006. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had awarded the punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner, only on the basis of the records available before him, including the report of the enquiry officer, dated 3.2.2005. Therefore, the punishment of 'censure' imposed on the petitioner is sustainable in the eye of law. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 1.3.2005, insofar as it imposes on the petitioner the punishment of 'censure'. 7. It is seen, from the records available, that two charges had been levelled against the petitioner, with regard to the irregularities, said to have been committed by the petitioner, with regard to the registration of the vehicles in question. It is also seen that an enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner, based on the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer, who had conducted the enquiry, had submitted a report finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. In spite of such findings, the first respondent had imposed the punishment of 'censure' on the petitioner, without showing proper reasons to do so. Thus, it is clear that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 1.3.2005, insofar as it imposes the punishment of 'censure' on the petitioner, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 1.3.2005, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed to the extent noted above. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.