Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1579 (MAD)

M. Thiruvalluvan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-03-19

R.VIJAYAKUMAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by a former P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Orathanadu challenging the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement. (A) Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 2. The writ petitioner herein was issued with a charge memo by the third respondent on 20.06.2019 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules . A perusal of the said charge memo reveals that the petitioner while he was working as P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Vorathanadu had relied upon two orders of the Director of Elementary Education dated 07.04.2017 and 10.04.2017 and has proceeded to grant approval to the Secondary Grade Teachers who have not completed Child Psychology Training. Those two orders of the Director of Elementary Education are bogus orders. The writ petitioner has not taken care to verify the same from the Directorate and he has placed the files before the Superintendent and in turn he had placed the same before the District Elementary Education Officer who had cleared the files. 3. In view of the above said approval, the Government has incurred a huge financial loss of Rs.1,23,35,085/-. In view of the above said misconduct, the writ petitioner has violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. 4. The writ petitioner has sent a detailed explanation on 26.06.2019 contending that the District Elementary Educational Officer Mr. Renganathan stated that he had collected the said order from the Directorate of Elementary Education, Chennai and after he had initialled the said order, it was sent to the table of the Superintendent and thereafter to the Section Clerk. After several staff have gone through the files, it was ultimately placed before the District Elementary Educational Officer who had approved the note. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner cannot be singled out for the alleged misconduct. In the explanation, it was further contended that there is no allegation that the writ petitioner has created the said document. In such circumstances, the entire departmental proceedings are liable to be dropped. 5. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed and he had considered the explanation and gone through the oral submissions made by the delinquent. In such circumstances, the entire departmental proceedings are liable to be dropped. 5. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed and he had considered the explanation and gone through the oral submissions made by the delinquent. The enquiry officer has found that when ROC is liable to be suspected, the writ petitioner ought to have rechecked the genuineness of those two proceedings from the Directorate of Elementary Education. Being the ministerial head, he ought to have been more cautious enough in placing the files before the District Elementary Educational Officer. Had he carefully perused, it could have been found that they are bogus orders. Due to the negligence on the part of the writ petitioner, the State has incurred huge financial loss of more than Rs.1.23 crores. The enquiry officer found that the writ petitioner is guilty of all charges. 6. The petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice calling upon him to furnish his explanation. The writ petitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.09.2020. The fourth respondent herein after concurring with the view of the enquiry officer, has proceeded to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement. The writ petitioner has filed an appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 27.02.2023 has confirmed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement. Challenging these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed. (B) Contentions of the learned counsels appearing on either side are as follows: 7. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended that there is no allegation that he had created the two orders dated 07.04.2017 and 10.04.2017. These two orders were brought to the office only by the District Elementary Educational Officer Mr. Renganathan and after he had initialled the said orders, it was routed through all the official and finally, it came into his hands as P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer. Thereafter, he had placed the same before DEO (Elementary Education). Though he had raised a doubt with regard to the order, the District Elementary Educational Officer stated that he had verified the same from the office of the Directorate, over phone. In such circumstances, there was no possibility or any occasion for the writ petitioner to doubt the genuineness of those two orders. 8. Though he had raised a doubt with regard to the order, the District Elementary Educational Officer stated that he had verified the same from the office of the Directorate, over phone. In such circumstances, there was no possibility or any occasion for the writ petitioner to doubt the genuineness of those two orders. 8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had further contended that he is not the disbursing authority or he was responsible in any manner for disbursing those benefits. He had further submitted that he has not made any file note to the effect that the amount may be disbursed. Therefore, he cannot be roped in the above charges. 9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had further contented that these two orders were handed over by the District Elementary Educational Officer in person and he had also initialled the same on 13.04.2017 and thereafter, it was forwarded to the Assistant and it was placed before the Superintendent. Only the Superintendent had recorded his opinion on 02.05.2017. The petitioner has simply placed these files before the District Elementary Educational Officer by adding a condition that the proceedings are subject to the outcome of the writ petitions pending before this Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be found fault with and impose with a major penalty of voluntary retirement. 10. The learned counsel had further contended that the petitioner had filed WP(MD).No.16873 of 2019 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition was disposed on 08.08.2019 with a direction to the authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. When the order was not complied with, he had filed contempt proceedings in Cont.P(MD).No. 1363 of 2021 and the same was closed by this Court on 17.02.2020 on the ground that the final orders have already been passed on 03.02.2022. According to him, the final orders have been passed beyond the time fixed by this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Dept, Chennai and another Vs. According to him, the final orders have been passed beyond the time fixed by this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Dept, Chennai and another Vs. T. Ranganathan, (2010) 3 MLJ 625 wherein, it is held that, once the Court has fixed the outer time limit for completion of enquiry, unless the time is extended by the Court, the departmental proceedings would lapse and the punishment cannot be imposed. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein had contended that the petitioner is the ministerial head of the office. Whenever an order of Directorate is brought to the notice, he should verify the ROC number and in case of any doubt, he should have rechecked the same from the Directorate. He was also aware of the fact that various writ petitions were pending before the High Court, for not granting approval to the Secondary Grade Teachers who have not completed Child Psychology Training. Therefore, whenever, he receives orders from the Directorate, he should have been doubted the said order, instead he had proceeded to place those files before the District Elementary Educational Officer who in turn had released the salary. This has caused huge financial loss of more than 1.25 crores. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath , 2022 Live Law (SC) 998 dated 23.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court or the Tribunal cannot re- appreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the Court or is found to be flawed for other reasons. In case, if the punishment on the delinquent employee shocks the conscience of the Court, then it may be called upon to reconsider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, the Court can decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons. Hence, he contended that the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence when enquiry has been conducted properly and the petitioner has been found guilty. Only in exceptional circumstances, the Court can decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons. Hence, he contended that the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence when enquiry has been conducted properly and the petitioner has been found guilty. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C) Discussion: 15. The petitioner while he was working as P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer at Orathanadu has been issued with a charge memo on 20.06.2019. The sum and substance of the said charge memo is that he had relied upon two orders of the Director of District Elementary Educational Officer dated 07.04.2017 and 10.04.2017 and has placed the files before the DEEO, Orathanadu for disbursement of salary from the initial date of appointment to the Secondary Grade Teachers who had not completed Child Psychology Training. According to the department, both these two orders are bogus orders. The petitioner being the ministerial head, ought to have verified the ROC number and the genuineness of the letters from the Directorate before placing the files before the DEEO. 16. The relevant portion of Paragraph No.8 of the counter is extracted as follows: “8. With regard to the averments made in Para 8 and 9 of the affidavit is is submitted that the petitioner relied on a bogus order said to have been issued by the Director of Elementary Education. He ought to have enquired about the orders where as he is well aware of the situation that no graduate teacher can be appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers posts and if appointed during the period from 11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998 they had given training in Child Psychology at their own expenses and after completion of such training their appointments can be approved. In these circumstances as a ministerial head, he ought to have been very cautious and ought to have guided the officer by his specific remarks. The petitioner was held responsible in not having guided the officer by his specific remarks although the file was routed through the Superintendent. He cannot evade his responsibilities. When he suspected the very proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education by the number itself, it was his duty to help up the approval by his specific remarks without blaming on others.” 17. He cannot evade his responsibilities. When he suspected the very proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education by the number itself, it was his duty to help up the approval by his specific remarks without blaming on others.” 17. The counter will clearly show that the primary allegation against the petitioner is that, he was aware of the legal position and as a ministerial head, he has not been very cautious enough and he has not guided the officer by his specific remarks. 18. A perusal of the explanation offered by the writ petitioner to the charge memo and his explanation to the enquiry report will clearly reveal that these two bogus orders have been brought to the office only by the District Elementary Educational Officer namely Mr.Renganathan. He had initialled those documents on 13.04.2017 and thereafter, these two documents have been placed before the other staff members for making file notes. The Superintendent had recorded his opinion and finally, it has reached the hands of the writ petitioner as P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer to place it before DEEO for passing final orders. 19. Except the fact that the files were routed through P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer, there is no allegation whatsoever as against the writ petitioner that he had made any file note or recorded his opinion in the said files relying upon the bogus orders. When DEEO himself has brought the orders to the office and initialled the same, there is no occasion whatsoever for the writ petitioner to recheck or verify the genuineness of these orders. The concerned District Elementary Educational Officer who had initialled these two bogus orders, is also facing disciplinary proceedings. In such circumstances, it is clear that there is no documentary or oral evidence to establish the connection of the writ petitioner with that of the delinquency except he had placed the files before DEEO who had already initialled these documents certifying them to be genuineness documents. 20. The only allegation as against the writ petitioner is that he should have verified about the genuineness of the documents from the Directorate. When DEEO himself had certified those documents to be genuine documents by making initial on the said documents, as a P.A to the District Elementary Educational Officer, the writ petitioner may not have any occasion to doubt for veracity of those documents. When DEEO himself had certified those documents to be genuine documents by making initial on the said documents, as a P.A to the District Elementary Educational Officer, the writ petitioner may not have any occasion to doubt for veracity of those documents. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the delinquency is clearly based on surmises and conjectures and not based upon the concrete materials. 21. When there is no evidence whatsoever, the finding arrived at by the authorities could only be considered to be a perverse finding. In such circumstances, this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to interfere in the order of punishment. 22. In view of the above said deliberations, the original authority as well as the appellate authority have not properly considered the allegations and the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner and they have proceeded to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petitions are liable to be set side. Accordingly, they are set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits of the writ petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.