S.Kamaraj, v. The Commissioner Of Municipal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ W.P.No.19007 of 2013 S.Kamaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administraion Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
... Respondents PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents 1 & 2 in connection with the impugned order passed in ROC No.46292/2003/OP3 dated 16.10.2009 and G.O (D) No.315 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME.4) Department dated 17.06.2013 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents: Mr.C.Selvaraj Govt.Advocate
O R D E R
Petitioner has challenged the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect imposed on him. The petitioner while serving as Revenue Inspector was issued with a charge memo dated 01.09.2008. The gravamen of charge is that being an immediate superior has failed to perform the routine supervisor duty resulting in misappropriation of Municipal funds to the tune Rs. 11,56,353/- by one H.B. Halan Revenue Assistant and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.
2. I heard the submission of both sides.
3. A perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority in ROC.No,.46292/2003/OP3 dated 16.10.2009 reveals that the said H.B Halan Revenue Assistant has misappropriated tax amount on the following dates 05.03.2000, 03.03.2000, 23.03.2000, 13.03.2000, 04.08.2000, 09.11.2000, 10.11.2000, 03.02.2001, 13.02.2001, 20.02.2001, 23.02.2001, 23.07.2001 and 25.07.2001. According to the Disciplinary Authority misappropriation happened in the year 2000-2001. It also explains as to how the said H.B.Halan committed the misappropriation and how it went undetected by the audit department. Further, it is observed that Junior Assistant has failed to bring it to the knowledge of the superiors. The said Revenue Assistant and the Junior Assistant conspired together to cheat the Municipal Administration.
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to observe that explanation of the delinquent officer is not convincing and that he being an immediate superior ought to have detected and reported misappropriation early, hence the charges stand proved and the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was ordered.
4. On appeal the Appellate Authority has observed that he has carefully considered the connected records and that the delinquent officer had not adduced any fresh grounds in his appeal and therefore there is no merit in the appeal and confirmed the punishment ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. But a perusal of imputation of misconduct against the delinquent officer found in Annexure-II of the charge memo dated 01.09.2008 reads otherwise.
After explaining the duties and responsibility of the Executive Authority and the Revenue Inspector that he should check atleast 5% of the original receipts issued to the parties from each receipt book after it is returned to the officer by the Bill Collector, in para 8 of the imputation of misconduct in Annexure-II it is stated that one Mayilvaganam Revenue Assistant has found out that there was misappropriation by H.B.Halan and produced the duplicate carbon copy of the receipts issued to the assessors. Thereafter one Kasilingam Revenue Officer instructed the petitioner to inspect and verify the wards 18,19 and 22 and to find out the truth.
The petitioner along with the said Mayilvaganam another Revenue Assistant inspected the original receipt books, assessment years, assessment numbers which were entered in the challans are tampered and scrutinized the same with the Junior Assistant with the counter sign and submitted the report that the said H.B.Halan misappropriated to the tune of Rs.11,56,353/- during 2001-02 for the assessment year 1998-1999 to 2001-2002. Based on that the entire enquiry was conducted.
instructed by the Revenue Officer to find out the truth and he unearthed the entire misappropriation.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner has joined duty only in October 2001 and immediately on the instruction of Revenue Officer he has found out the misappropriation and submitted the report. Further the misappropriation had happened in the years 1998 - 1999, 1999 - 2000, 2000-2001 and 2001 - 2002. As per the duties and responsibilities prescribed in the rule book he completed 5% of checking of remittances and he has discharged his duty with utmost devotion.
6. Even though the entire charge revolves around the dereliction of duty and negligence of the petitioner as a superior officer, there is absolutely no discussion about as to how the petitioner had neglected to discharge his duties. In any disciplinary proceedings, the charges should be specific. The charge memo should specifically state the specific dates of dereliction of his duties after he joined the post i.e October, 2001, and that the petitioner has omitted to supervise his subordinate. But contrary to the fact the very imputation states that even the audit department could not detect the misappropriation which had happened over a period of time.
It is to be noted that as per the office procedure the Revenue Assistant shall remit the amount to the office and it should be checked by the Junior Assistant and counter signed by him and thereafter produced before the Revenue Inspector, Assistant Revenue Officer and Revenue Officer. In that event the respondent ought to have specifically stated as to how the Revenue Inspector alone was negligent in supervising the tax registers. But both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority has not adverted to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his objections and memorandum of appeal.
Even though the imputation of misconduct in Annexure-II of the charge memo clearly shows that it is the petitioner, who had found out the truth, but then, it was not at all discussed by the Disciplinary authority while holding the charges proved and imposing punishment.
7. It is also very relevant to note that when it came to imposition of punishment which was made without any discussion, the very same Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect in respect of the Junior Assistant who was a immediate superior of the Revenue Assistant, who checked the challans and the bills and made entries in the registers. In the case of another Revenue Inspector who is similarly placed that of the petitioner was also imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for
six months without cumulative effect. There is no evidence with regard to the disciplinary proceedings against the executive authorities such as Assistant Revenue Officer and Revenue Officer, who are equally responsible.
8. I could not understand as to how the officials, who were supervising the affairs as that of the petitioner were imposed with a lesser punishment and as to why major punishment was imposed to the petitioner. There is absolutely no discussion about it in the punishment order. As discussed above, on a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that no materials are found to prove the specific allegations of negligence against the petitioner. However the fact remains that a sum of Rs. 11,56,353/- was misappropriated during which time the petitioner was also holding office. When a lighter punishment was imposed to the Officers, who are directly connected to the collection of amount and making entries, similar treatment should have been extended to the petitioner also.
The disciplinary authority ought not to have adopted different yardsticks for the delinquent involved in the same misconduct. Without any specific finding as to charges and without any discussion as to the proportionality of the punishment, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment in a discriminatory manner does stand the scrutiny of law and cannot be sustained.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to modify the order to one of withholding of increment for six months without cumulative effect as it was done in respect of similarly placed Revenue Inspector.
10. Writ petition is partly allowed with the above directions. It is stated that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation and therefore the respondents are directed to calculate all the terminal benefits in accordance with the modified punishment and disburse all the monetary benefits to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order copy. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administraion Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
+1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate Sr.36151 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.36244 W.P.No.19007 of 2013 ak-II[co] srg 02/11/2021