The petitioner after being punished with the punishment of "Severe Warning" for a period of one year by an order dated 01.12.1997, the appellate authority/the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.04.2000 calling upon the petitioner to submit his detailed explanation as to why the minor punishment of "Severe Warning" for a period of one year should not be enhanced. The said notice was issued by the appellate authority under Rule 36 (1) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for assailing issuance of show cause notice under Rule 36 (1) (iii) is that the appellate authority has to issue the show cause notice in the exercise of suo motu revisional power within six months from the date of order dated 01.12.1997. Since, the exercise of suo motu power has been invoked after a delay of three years it was contended that the issuance of show cause notice is without any jurisdiction as it is barred by limitation.
2. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents tried his level best to sustain the issuance of the notice, done in exercise of suo motu power conferred under Rule 36 (1) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was unable to give clear cut answer as to why there was a delay and why the show cause notice could not have been issued within six months time as contemplated by Rule 36 (1) (iii).
3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority also found him guilty and subsequently he was also imposed with the punishment of "Severe Warning" for a period of one year by an order dated 01.12.1997. It is an admitted fact that the appellate authority is having enormous power to enhance the minor punishment with suitable proportion to the proved charges. The petitioner was dealt with under Section 36 (1) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. While doing so, he has to come within the parameters laid down under Rule 36 (1) which is extracted as follows:-
"36.Revision-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rule:-
(i) the State Government; or
(ii) the head of the department directly under the State Government, in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office under the control of such head of the department, or department, or
(iii) the appellate authority, other than the State Government, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised;"
5. The first respondent being the appellate authority was given only six months time from the date of imposition of punishment for exercise of the suo motu revisional power conferred under Rule 36 (1) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules .
6. Admittedly in the present case, the exercise of suo motu power having been not done within the limitation prescribed by Rule 36 (1) (iii) and have been exercised only after a delay of 2 = years, this Court seeing force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the issuance of show cause notice was barred by limitation, is inclined to set aside the same and accordingly the same is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
smn To
1.Deputy Director of Fire Service, Central Region, Court Compound, Trichy 620 001.
2.Divisional Fire Officer, Trichirappalli 620 001