Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 570 (MAD)

R. Dhanapalan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2012-02-03

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1 The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 11.07.2000 passed by the respondent vide Na.Ka.5778/99(A1) dismissing the petitioner from the post of Village Administrative Officer. 2 The petitioner while working as Village Administrative Officer in Kulamanickam Village, Needamangalam Taluk, Tiruvarur District, was issued a charge memo by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi vide order in Na.Ka.No.5778/99(A1) dated 14.03.2000 on six charges. 3 The charges were serious in nature. The charge memo was for imposing major penalty. The petitioner failed to submit any explanation within the time stipulated. 4 The stand of the petitioner is that he was suffering from Hepatitis-B and taking treatment for the decease, therefore, was not in a position to file defense to the charge memo. 5 On failure of the petitioner to file reply, it was incumbent on the respondent to appoint enquiry officer, to look into the charges against the petitioner, but the respondent instead of proceeding with the enquiry in pursuance to the charge memo, imposed major punishment of dismissal. 6 The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the order is contrary to the statutory rules, therefore, cannot be sustained, as no penalty can be imposed against an employee, without holding departmental enquiry and holding the delinquent guilty of charge. Mere non reply to charge memo cannot lead to admission or proof of allegation. 7 It is well settled law, that even in case of no reply to the charge memo, the competent authority still is obliged to hold enquiry to prove the charges, and it is only after the charges are proved, that a major punishment can be imposed on the delinquent. 8 The stand of the petitioner that no enquiry was held to prove charges is not disputed. 9 The impugned order therefore, being contrary to statutory rules and arbitrary, cannot be sustained. 10 Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the consequential benefits. 11 However, this order shall not bar the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs.