Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1758 (MAD)

K. Ganesan v. District Collector, Tirunelveli

2012-04-04

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli in appeal filed by petitioner against the order of removal from service. 2. The petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 17(b) on the following charges: "Charge No.1 AmbasamduramTaluk, Pathamadai Village without the Village account for S.No.314/1a has been created imaginary S.No.and without receiving any application or enquiry or sub division from 11 persons and created forged patta and got the signature of Assistant Tahsildar Rathna Singh and supplied by the then Village Administrative Officer David Jayaraj, for this forgery helped the persons. Charge No.2 In the same Village as per the Village account book 45 sq.ft. land has been acquired for road in S.No.559/1 0.13.65 hectare land has been given to 18 persons, without any sub division the Village Assistant got the signature of Rathna Singh Assistant and helped to incorporate in the Pathamadai Village records. Charge No.3 The demarcated land of vacant site as per the Village account to an extent of 0.39.25 hectare land in S.No.719/3 issued patta to 7 persons to an extent of 0.01.0 hectare without receiving any request or enquiry or subdivision and helped to get the signature of Rathna Singh Assistant Tahsildar and helped to enter into the Pathamadai Village Assistant Register and misused his power and also got patta in the name of his wife. Charge No.4 The individual helped David Sayaraj VAO of Pathamadai Village Patta register and got the signature of Mr.Rathna Singh without following the Government Rules in house site No.158/1408 dated 18.04.1999 and house site No.45/1408 dated 16.04.1999 when no documents available in Ambasamduram Taluk Office." 3. The Enquiry Officer held that, the charges against petitioner were proved. The competent authority, agreed with the enquiry officer, imposed punishment of removal from service. 4. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of removal before the District Collector, being appellate authority under the rules. 5. The order of removal was challenged in appeal, by raising 15 grounds, i.e. legal and on facts. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal. 6. 4. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of removal before the District Collector, being appellate authority under the rules. 5. The order of removal was challenged in appeal, by raising 15 grounds, i.e. legal and on facts. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal. 6. The operative part of order passed by the appellate authority reads as under: "11.) In the appeal Mr.K.Ganesan's Appeal Petition, charges framed against him Executive Officer's findings and Revenue Divisional Officer's Order and relevant documents were carefully considered scrutinized. 12.) The Charges framed against the individuals are proved hence the punishment given by Cheramahadevi Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.03.2001 dismissing from service of the Appellant is justifiable. 13.) Hence Appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and Cheramahadevi Revenue Divisional Officer's Order in proceeding No.A5/1417/2000 dated 27.03.2001, is confirmed. Sd. District Collector Tirunelveli" 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of appellate authority, on the ground that the order is totally non speaking order, as it does not deal with grounds raised against the order of punishment, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 8. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in J.K.Rajkumarvs. The Director General of Police and others (W.P.No.48481 of 2006), decided on 19.03.2012. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand opposed the writ petition, by contending that the reading of the order of punishment shows, that the punishing authority had carefully gone through the charges as well as findings recorded, by enquiry officer and thereafter, by agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, removed the petitioner from service. The order passed by the appellate authority shows, that it considered all the points raised by petitioner before passing impugned order, and thereafter agreed with the punishing authority, therefore, order cannot be said to be a non speaking order. 10. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The order of appellate authority does not give any reasons for rejecting the contention raised by petitioner. The appellate authority has mechanically passed the order, holding therein that it agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, without even referring to order of punishing authority or recording the contentions raised by petitioner in the appeal. 11. The order of appellate authority does not give any reasons for rejecting the contention raised by petitioner. The appellate authority has mechanically passed the order, holding therein that it agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, without even referring to order of punishing authority or recording the contentions raised by petitioner in the appeal. 11. It is well settled law, that the appellate authority exercising quasi judicial authority, is required to pass the order, giving reasons for rejecting the grounds raised to challenge the order under appeal, so that the Higher Court can know about the mind of the appellate authority, and reasons for coming to the particular conclusion. 12. The impugned order of appellate authority is thus violative of the settled law, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the District Collector is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the District Collector for reconsideration of the appeal in accordance with law. 14. The District Collector is directed to pass a detailed speaking order, by dealing with the grounds of challenge, either accepting or rejecting it. 15. Since the petitioner is out of service, the appellate authority is directed to pass final order on the appeal, within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.