The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the first respondent herein in P.R.No.3 of 2003 and the Appellate Authority in the proceedings C2/10020/04 dated 04.11.2004, whereby and where-under, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of reduction of the pay scale by three stages for three years without cumulative effect and the Appellate Authority has modified the punishment by imposing the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect.
2. According to the petitioner, he was an Electrician at the Police Transport Workshop, Avadi. In the year 2003, a charge memo was issued in P.R.No.3 of 2002, Na.Ka.No.B2/17672/2003 dated 08.10.2003. The charge against the petitioner was that he used unparliamentary words and behaved in a disrespectful manner towards an Automobile Engineer Mr.V.Sampath Kumar on 10.09.2003. The charge was framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter called Rules). The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. An enquiry was conducted by the Commandant TSP-III Battalion.
3. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted without affording sufficient opportunity to cross examine the departmental witnesses and not allowed to ask crucial questions. The evidence in his favour was not fully recorded. It is his further case that he examined three witnesses on his behalf as defence witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were held proved. The Enquiry Officer did not give any valid reason for not accepting the evidence of the defence witnesses. The petitioner was asked to submit his additional explanations with regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He submitted the additional explanation on 07.04.2004. Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order imposing the punishment of reduction of pay scales by three stages for three years without cumulative effect.
4. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, the second respondent herein on 09.06.2004. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 04.11.2004 disposed of the appeal by modifying the punishment as reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. As against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that on 10.09.2003 at about 09.00 hours, the Automobile Engineer, Thiru V.Sampathkumar was about to leave from Avadi Workshop in his Jeep for Marutham Complex in Chennai to inspect the new vehicles to Police Department. The petitioner went near the Jeep and asked the Automobile Engineer to relieve him from Chief Office, as Chief Office duty created a discomfort to the petitioner. The Automobile Engineer has informed the petitioner that he was deputed to Chief Office to attend Chief Office Vehicles and that he must come back to Avadi Workshop as and when he is passported back from Chief Office. On hearing these words, the petitioner got irritated and started behaving in a disrespectful manner using unparliamentary words asked the Automobile Engineer to alight from his vehicle and to give him a reply and thereby he has committed an act of indiscipline and misconduct. In this regard, V.Sampath Kumar, submitted a report to the first respondent narrating the above incident and requested to take necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner.
6. The respondents further submitted that based on the report of the Automobile Engineer and on the strength of the statements given by Thiru S.Ramasubbu, Foreman and Driver PC-972 Saravanan, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the second respondent in Range Office No.103/2002 dated 17.09.2003 in C.NO.D2/17672/2003. A charge memo was framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules. It was served on the petitioner on 13.10.2003. The petitioner submitted his written explanation on 21.10.2003.
7. The Commandant, Tamilnadu Special Police III Battalion, Veerapuram was appointed as Enquiry Officer on the disciplinary case by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai -10 in proceedings dated 05.01.2004. After completion of the oral enquiry against the petitioner sent a proved Minute to Range Office for passing orders. On receipt of the Minute, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai has sent a copy of the Minute to the petitioner and asked him to furnish further representation, if any, to defend him. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has submitted his further representation, which was received in the office on 07.04.2004. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the Minute and the further representation of the petitioner agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and ordered the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years without cumulative effect. The 'F' order inflicting the said punishment was served on the petitioner on 15.04.2004. The petitioner appealed against that order before the second respondent on 09.06.2004. The Appellate Authority has modified the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by three stages for three years without cumulative effect to that of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect in his proceedings dated 04.11.2004.
8. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the Appellate Authority, namely, the second respondent has not completely disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the punishment imposed by the first respondent, the Disciplinary Authority. It is not correct to say that the Appellate Authority has stated in his order that the punishing authority has not analysed the evidences. The second respondent comes to a conclusion that the petitioner has not brought any fresh points for consideration and found that the punishment awarded by the first respondent was little excessive and hence, he has modified the punishment as reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect.
9. It is also stated that all Government servants are governed by rules and orders and they must behave properly and politely with the superior officers particularly in their official dealings with them. If any grievance or request of the petitioner was not accepted or rejected by the Automobile Engineer, he would have met the next higher officers like the Deputy Inspector General of Police, The Inspector General of Police on grievance redressel day. Contrary to the official procedure, the petitioner has directly confronted his Head of Office, which is highly objectionable from the disciplinary point of view. In respect of the additional explanations, the petitioner himself has admitted in his further representation that he has approached the Works Manager, Police Transport Workshop-cum-Training School, Avadi, while he was about to move to Chennai for official duty.
10. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of the defence witnesses I, II and III on 12.02.2004. In their statements Thiru Guruvaraj, D.W.1, Thiru Seenivasan, D.W.2 have stated that while standing in the works stores on 10.09.2003 to get things, they have seen the alleged incident and heard the talks of the petitioner with the Automobile Engineer and the replies of the Automobile Engineer to the petitioner. D.W.3 Thiru T.t.Raman has stated that he was called by Thiru Ramasubbu, Foreman on 10.09.2003 as Thiru Ramasubbu, Foreman was standing near the stores. He went there, saw the alleged incident and heard the conversation between the petitioner and the Automobile Engineer. It is not correct to say that the defence witnesses have heard the conversation of the petitioner with the Automobile Engineer and the replies of the Automobile Engineer to the petitioner, because of the distance between the stores, where the defence witnesses had specific duty on 10.09.2003. In the place, where the jeep was about to move, in such a distance, nothing will be available. Hence, the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the defence witnesses deposed to help the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has putforth the findings only on the legally acceptable evidence. After going through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Minute, the first respondent imposed the punishment. However, the Appellate Authority has modified the punishment.
11. It is specifically averred that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross examine the departmental witnesses, which was also availed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not furnished the details of crucial questions or answers made by him during the oral enquiry and as such the respondent cannot offer any comments on this statement of the petitioner. Therefore, this is only an after thought and there is no merit in the petition and hence, the same is liable be dismissed.
12. Heard Mr.J.Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
13. The foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the additional representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the disciplinary authority and he has not been allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel also contended that in the order of the Appellate Authority, as noticed, the punishing authority has not analysed the witnesses. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has to consider this aspect in its entirety.
14. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that there is no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings and the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have properly considered the entire evidence and also on scrutiny of the entire records have come to the conclusion and hence there is no infirmity in the order. In support of his argument, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon a decision of the Supreme in the case of Bank of India and Others v. T.Jogram reported in (2007) 7 SCC 236, wherein in paragraph 15, it is held as follows:
15. By now it is well-settled principle of law that judicial review is not against the decision. It is against the decision-making process. In the instance case, there are no allegations of procedural irregularities/ illegality and also there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the respondent tried to sustain the allegation of mala fide. He tried to assert that the respondent filed a case against the Chief Manager of Secunderabad Branch in 1996 and the enquiry initiated against the respondent is the fallout of mala fide. We are unable to accept the bald allegations. The allegation of mala fide was not substantiated. It is well-settled law that the allegation of mala fide cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. It should be based on factual matrix. Counsel also tried to assert the violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the documents required by the respondent were not supplied to him. From the averment it is seen that the documents, which were sought to be required by the respondent, were all those bills submitted by the respondent himself before the authority. In these circumstances, no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the respondent.
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh reported in 1982 (1) LLJ (SC) 46, wherein in paragraph 4, it is held as follows:
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules or evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to heresay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and creditability. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic Tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the Courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the Tribunal before the valid findings could be recorded. The "residium" rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from the American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from the Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the Court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, inspector of the Flying Squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground."
16. On the above contentions raised by the learned counsel on either side, the question arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the respondents.
17. It is seen that the petitioner was an Electrician at the Police Transport Workshop, Avadi and in the year 2003, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued in P.R.No.3 of 2002, Na.Ka.No.B2/17672/2003 dated 08.10.2003 against the petitioner for using unparliamentary words and behaving in a disrespectful manner towards one Automobile Engineer Mr.V.Sampath Kumar on 10.09.2003. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. An enquiry was conducted by the Commandant TSP-III Battalion. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the Minute and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, passed an order imposing the punishment of reduction of pay scales by three stages for three years without cumulative effect. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, the second respondent herein on 09.06.2004. The Appellate Authority has applied his mind and then come to the conclusion that though the punishing authority has not analysed the evidences, he has gone through the Minute and further representation along with the connected records carefully and based on which, he has agreed with the findings and thereafter modified the punishment to that of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. Other than these points, the appellant has not put forth any fresh points for consideration and also noticed the point that further representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant has not brought forth any fresh points for consideration. Therefore, the Appellate Authority taking into account all the entire facts and circumstances, modified the order of punishment into punishment in reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect.
18. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it reveals that the evidences have been examined and an opportunity has been given to the petitioner and further representation has also been looked into by the authorities. Therefore, though the disciplinary authority has quantified the punishment to the level of three stages for three years without cumulative effect, this has been properly looked into by the Appellate Authority and modified the punishment to that of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect.
19. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any irregularity or infirmity in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
20.04.2009 Index : Yes Internet: Yes svki To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai 600 010.
2.The Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Tiruchirappali at Chennai 600 010.
V.DHANAPALAN,J.
svki W.P.No.1106 of 2005 20.04.2009