The
Chief Engineer & Anr Vs. K. Raman [1996] INSC 927 (8 August 1996)
Jeevan
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J) B.P.Jeevan Reddy,
J.
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 435 1996 SCALE (5)754
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
This
appeal is preferred against the judgment of a learned single member
(administrative member) of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowing the
Original Application filed by the respondent.
The
respondent was a Jeep Driver in the public Works Department of State of the
Tamil Nadu. He applied for leave from 1.3.1984 to 31.3.1988 on the ground that
he has to look after his ailing mother and his family properties. He was
granted earned leave from 1.3.84 to 31.3.84 and leave on loss of pay from
1.4.84 to 31.3.88. Since he did not join duty after expiry of leave, it appears
that on 12.11.1988, was asked to join duty. He reported to duty on 27.11.88 and
according to the respondent, he was admitted to duty on 6.12.88.
On
2.12.1988, an order was passed by the Executive Engineer stating that the
respondent must be deemed to have resigned from service with effect from
1.4.1984. The respondent challenged the said order before the Tamil Nadu State
Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 282 of 1989. The Tribunal held that since
the respondent was admitted to duty pursuant to the letter calling upon him to
join duty, the respondent was entitled to join duty on 6.12.88. So far as the
order dated 2.12.88 is concerned, the Tribunal quashed the same on the ground
that it was passed without holding a regular enquiry as required by rules and
the principles of natural justice. After reinstating the respondent as directed
by the Tribunal, the appellant issued a memo of charges upon him. He was also
suspended pending enquiry and a regular disciplinary enquiry held. The gravamen
of the charges was that having obtained leave on the grounds aforestated, the
respondent left the country for working in a foreign country without obtaining
the permission of the department. The enquiry officer held the charges
established. The report of the enquiry officer was communicated to the
respondent to which he submitted his explanation. The Superintending Engineer,
after considering the entire material, imposed the punishment of compulsory
retirement by order date 14.10.91 with effect from 31.10.1991.
The
respondent challenged the order dated 14.10.1991 before the Tamil Nadu Tribunal
in O.A.NO.2386 OF 1992. The learned Administrative member quashed the order of
compulsory retirement on the only ground that in view of the earlier order of
the Tribunal dated 11.4.1990 in O.A.No.2 of 1989. it was not permissible for
the appellants to hold the disciplinary enquiry. The learned member opined that
the respondent was entitled to join duty on 6.12.88, his joining duty on
6.12.1988 was perfectly in order. The learned Member further opined that the
reference in the said order to the failure on the part of the appellants to
follow the procedure prescribed for imposing punishment was only incidental and
that the said order did not also grant the permission to take disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent. Accordingly, the learned Member set aside
the order dated 31.10.91 and made certain directions regarding past service.
We
have carefully read the earlier order of the Tribunal. In our opinion, the main
ground on which the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 1.4.88 was that it was
passed without following the procedure prescribed by rules and in violation of
the principles of natural justice. It is true that the order also observed that
in view of the appellants letter calling upon the respondent to join duty, the
respondent was entitled to join duty on 6.12.88, but that circumstance has
absolutely no relevance on the competence of the disciplinary authority to hold
a regular disciplinary enquiry on the charges aforesaid viz., obtaining
employment in a foreign country without obtaining the permission of the
department. Even if it is held that the respondent was admitted to duty on
6.12.88, that fact does not in any way disentitle the disciplinary authority
from holding a disciplinary enquiry on the aforesaid charges. We are also of
the opinion that the learned member was not right in observing that inasmuch as
the earlier order of the Tribunal did not grant any permission to the appellants
to hold a disciplinary enquiry, no such enquiry could have been held. For
holding a disciplinary enquiry according to rules, no permission of the
Tribunal was required. The earlier order declaring that respondent must be
deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 1.4.1984 was set aside,
as stated above, on the ground that it was passed without holding an enquiry as
per Rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It did not bar
a disciplinary enquiry according to Rules and the principles of natural
justice.
Since
the only ground on which the learned Administrative Member has set aside the
order dated 14.10.91 is found unsustainable, the appeal is liable to be allowed
and is accordingly allowed herewith. The order of the Tribunal is set aside.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2