The
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors Vs. M. Natarajan
& ANR [1997] INSC 554 (7 July 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both sides.
These
appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and common order of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 30.4.1996 in OA Nos. 3804/94.
The
admitted facts are that on 10.2.1987, the respondent misbehaved with two ladies
and outraged their modesty and took them Into the lock up in the earlier hours,
i.e., at 0200 hours. When two person intervened,they were beaten by them ; As a
consequence, an enquiry was held and a criminal case was also instituted
against the respondents.
When
they were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, they failed to appear in
spite of several opportunities given to them. As a result, the Enquiry Officer
was constrained to record the findings and recommend imposition of the
punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. After the
receipt of the report, The disciplinary authority had issued notices to the
respondents as to why major penalty should not be given to the respondents. The
respondents asked for opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and sought
fresh enquiry on the ground that by that date the criminal case filed against
the respondents was withdrawn. The competent authority declined to accede to
the request and imposed the punishment of removal from service. Feeling
aggrieved, They filed O.As. in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the O.As. on
the ground that the disciplinary authority did not consider the evidence to
justify the finding of proof of charges and violated the principles of natural
justice. We find that the Tribunal was not justified in reaching the conclusion
for the reason that the Tribunal itself has categorically recorded findings at
pages 8-10 as under :
"the
applicants were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, but, They wrote to
them saying that since the Criminal case was proceeding against them in a Criminal
Court they would suggest that the departmental proceedings might be postponed
till the disposal of the Criminal proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was right in
holding the view that there was no bar for departmental proceedings to go while
the criminal proceedings were being conducted at the appropriate forum.
The
applicants had chosen not to participate in the departmental proceedings
because of the reason that the criminal proceedings and the departmental
proceedings should not go simultaneously. Though ignorance of law is not an
excuse, the Enquiry Officer should have taken some steps to convince the
applicants of the settled principle of law that both the criminal and
departmental proceedings could go simultaneously and advised them to
participate in the enquiry. But the applicants did not yield and only after the
criminal was withdrawn against them, they chose to appear before the
authorities concerned for the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer did not wait for the
stage to materialise and he passed his ex-parte findings. The applicants
refused to appear for the oral enquiry instead of several opportunities giver
to them.
Therefore,
it was decided to examine the prosecution witness in the absence of the
applicants.
After
the examination of P.Ws. the applicants were directed to appear to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses if they so desired. Even then they did
not appear.
Therefore,
the Enquiry was treated as closed after examining the prosecution witnesses and
a finding was arrived at based on the materials available with the prosecution
side. The applicants were even asked to submit their list of witnesses to be
examined as Defence Witnesses, but they did not submit their written statement
of defence if they desired, but they did not do that also. Finally, the
applicants wrote saying that they submitted their representation to the
Superintendent of Police and he replied and after recieving the reply from the
Superintendent of police, a representation for the change of Enquiry Officer
was turned down by the Superintendent of Police. Finally, enquiry was closed
and ex-parte minute was prepared. Based on the findings of the Enquiry
Officers" report in both the cases, the Superintendent of Police awarded
the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay for three years with
cumulative effect to the applicant in O.A. No.3804/91 and removed the applicant
in O.A.
3805/91
from service." In view of these findings, we think that no procedural
illegalities were committed in conducting the enquiry. The question is: what
punishment should be awarded to the respondents? The Enquiry Officer himself
has recommended to impose penalty of stoppage of three increments with
cumulative effect. We find that the Enquiry Officer was justified. On the facts
and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the removal from
service. Instead, the disciplinary authority is directed to impose the
punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.
The
appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. The respondents are not entitled for
any back wages.
Back