The O.A.No.571 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is now WP.No.5709 of 2007.
2. Heard, Mr.S.M.Subramanian, counsel for the petitioner and Tmt. C.K.Vishnupriya, Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
3. The Petitioner was working as a Co-operative Sub Registrar, Tirupullani Block Development office, Ramanathapuram District.
4. The third respondent issued a charge sheet dated 08.10.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules.
5. Based on the charge sheet, an enquiry was held by the third respondent. The petitioner was issued notices thrice to appear for enquiry, but the petitioner did not choose to appear. Hence the third respondent conducted an exparte enquiry and he submitted a report dated 18.06.1999. The enquiry officer found that the charges were proved.
6. The third respondent, who acted as an enquiry officer, was justified in conducting an exparte enquiry when the petitioner chose not to appear in the enquiry, though notices were served on him. But even in the exparte enquiry, the third respondent should have examined witnesses and documents, if any, should have been marked as exhibits and thereafter the enquiry officer should record his findings, based on the evidence, oral and documentary, that were placed before him. But, unfortunately, the third respondent recorded a finding of guilt on the ground that the petitioner failed to appear in the enquiry. The findings of the enquiry officer is extracted here below :
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
7. This court in a decision reported in 1992 II LLN 127 (R.Karuppannan Vs.T.N.W.S & Drainage Board), held that proof of charge by independent oral evidences is necessary. In the said case, the documents were produced in the enquiry, where the concerned workman participated and based on the eqnuiry report, charges were held to be proved. Even such a procedure was not acceptable by this court and this court recorded a finding as follows in para 9 of the judgment.
"9. ..... If the department wanted to prove that the purchase of 17 pumpsets was in excess, it should have proved by independent evidence oral evidence to that effect in the inquiry. It is not necessary for the petitioner to ask the department to lead the evidence. It is for the department to prove that the charges are correct. Then only comes the defence on the part of the officer. In this case, it is curious that the department has proceeded purely on correspondence and the statements made by the officers who succeeded the petitioner that the pumpsets are in excess and they are not needed. If the department has let in evidence by the officers concerned between 1982 and 1989 and has proved what the petitioner did was wrong, it should have been appreciated. It has not been done in this case. It is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice that merely because facts are admitted or are indisputable, it does not follow that natural justice need not be observed See S.L.Kapoor V.Jagmohan [A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 136]. So this is a case in my view where the impugned order has to be set aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice."
8. The findings of the enquiry officer, as extracted above, makes it very clear that he recorded findings, without examination of any witness and without marking any documents as exhibits. Hence such a findings should be held as bad and illegal and is liable to be set aside. Since the impugned punishment order dated 20.08.1999 is based on the said findings of the enquiry officer, the impugned order is also set aside.
9. While setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry, giving opportunity to the petitioner, and to take a decision there on, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
tsh To
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 170, EVR Periyar Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
2.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ramanathapuram Region, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ramanathapuram Circle, Ramanathapuram