The Corporation Of Chennai v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.02.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.A.No.291 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 The Corporation of Chennai Rep. By its Commissioner Dr.D.Karthikeyan Rippon Buildings Chennai-600 003 ... Appellant/Respondent vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, School Education Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009 2.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. By its Member Secretary Chennai-600 002 3.The Enquiry Officer Assistant Educational Officer (Administration) Chennai-600 003 4.George T.V.K.Whitin

...Respondents

Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.4625 of 2006 dated 13.09.2010.

WP.No.4625 of 2006:Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings made in G.O. (D) No.108 School Education (M1) Department dated 23.5.2005 passed by the first respondent confirming the order made in Ka.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E6/9353/95 dated 25.10.99 passed by the third respondent and the order made in Letter No.7276/DC/D/A1/2002-1 dated 21.2.2005 passed by the second respondent and the enquiry report dated 6.4.99 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently directed the

respondents to reinstate him in service with all attended benefits.

For Appellant :Ms.A.Karthikaa Ashok For Respondents:Mr.R.Ravichandran Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1 and R3 Mr.M.Devendran for R2 Mr.G.Ethirajulu for R4

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) Heard Mrs.A.Karthikaa Ashok, learned Standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the first and third respondent, Mr.M.Devendran, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order made in W.P.No.4625 of 2006 dated 13.09.2010, wherein, the prayer is as under:- "Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings made in G.O.(D).No.108 School Education (M1) Department dated 23.05.2005 passed by the first respondent confirming the order made in Ka.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E6/9353/95 dated 25.10.99 passed by the third respondent and the order made in Letter No.7276/DC/D/A1/2002-1 dated 21.02.2005 passed by the second respondent and the enquiry report dated 6.4.99 passed by the respondent-4 and tc quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits."

3. The case of the 4th respondent herein/Writ Petitioner is that, he was working as Physical Education Teacher in Corporation High School at Sachidanandam Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai. By proceedings dated 20.12.1995, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, suspended him from service from the date of arrest and the date of remand on the charge that the petitioner had kidnapped a girl student studying in X Standard. According to the 4th respondent/Writ Petitioner, a false case was registered against him in S.C.No.363 of 1996 on the file of 3rd

Additional Sessions Court, Chennai under Section 366 and 376 of IPC as if the petitioner had kidnapped a girl student and raped her, but the same was not proved. After the acquittal order, the 4th respondent/Writ Petitioner sought for revocation of suspension order. An enquiry was conducted against him and a report was submitted, and on the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the effect that as per the enquiry report, it was evident that the petitioner had kidnapped a minor girl student on 27.09.1995 at 11.30 a.m., and insisted the minor girl student to marry him and he misbehaved with the said girl student.

4. The contention raised by the writ petitioner was that the order of dismissal was passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, but it was signed by the Educational Officer, who is not the competent authority to do so. However, in the counter filed, the action of the Department was justified. The learned Single Judge, after going through the charges framed against the Physical Education Teacher, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved beyond doubt. The learned Single Judge further pointed out that there was no proper enquiry conducted on the allegation made and barring the petitioner, no one was examined on the side of the Management and thereby, set aside the dismissal order and allowed the Writ Petition. The findings of the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 9 are usefully extracted as under:- " 9.

As already pointed out, leaving aside the judgment in the criminal proceedings, the so called enquiry leads us nowhere on the findings as regards the allegations made against the petitioner. The reply of the petitioner to the notice dated 25.07.1998 is found in Page 168 of the file. The letter of the petitioner dated 15.02.1999 attending the enquiry is found in Page 167. Thereafter, at page 169, is the report of the enquiry officer. The decision of the Magistrate Court acquitting the petitioner has also attained finality. Going by the above said aspect, I am satisfied that there was no proper enquiry conducted on the allegation made and barring the petitioner, no one was examined on the side of the Management. I have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed in this regard thereby allowing the writ petition.

Consequently, the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent confirming the order passed by the third respondent dated 25.10.1999 and the order passed on 21.12.2005 by the second respondent and enquiry report dated 06.04.1999, stands set aside."

5. As against the said order, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. The contention of the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation of Chennai is that the criminal proceedings and Departmental enquiry are independent of each other and hence, the report of the Enquiry Officer, cannot be found fault with. She further submitted that for the proven charges of misconduct, the 4th respondent/Physical Education Teacher suffered dismissal order and hence, the said order is legally sustainable.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent/Physical Education Teacher submitted that the learned Single Judge had gone through the original files and the charges framed against the 4th respondent and passed a detailed order and therefore, this Writ Appeal has no merits.

7. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge, the charges framed against the 4th respondent/Physical Education Teacher and the report of the enquiry officer and carefully considered the submissions made on both sides.

8. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has gone through the entire files, proceedings under challenge and came to a conclusion that the whole enquiry has been misconducted and there has been gross violation of procedural irregularity and in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, irrespective of the acquittal order in the criminal case, the learned Single Judge found that the proceedings before Departmental enquiry was vitiated and rightly set aside the dismissal order. We find no reason to interfere with the said findings of the learned Single Judge in view of the fact that enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and there is no material to substantiate the allegations made in the charges and it was only a mere reference to the First Information Report. It is a classic case where Departmental Enquiry has been conducted in a slipshod manner and without following any procedure.

9. It is time for the Government to train the Officers on the procedural regularities and on the necessity to rely upon proper material before the Enquiry is conducted and concluded. In the recent speech by the Honourable Chief Justice of India at the inauguration of State Judicial Academy, Regional Centre, it was indicated that Officers of all Ranks viz., Government Departments, Revenue Department, Collectors, Police Officers, Tahsildars and such other Officers, who perform judicial and quasi judicial function, should be trained on legal aspects and procedure which will help them in deciding legal proceedings so that their orders are not faulted for lack of judicial application of mind and for procedural irregularities. It goes

without saying that on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, courts have set aside several administrative orders of the Government. Therefore, we suggest and recommend to the Government to ensure that Officers performing judicial and quasi judicial function should undergo training for effective discharge of their orders. In this way, a number of litigations can be curtailed.

10. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The appellant is directed to comply with paragraph 12 of the direction of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4625 of 2006 and settle the terminal benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar nvsri To 1.The Secretary to State School Education Department,Fort St.George Chennai-600 009 2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Chennai-600 002 3.The Enquiry Officer, Assistant Educational Officer (Administration), Chennai-600 003 +1 cc to M/s.Karthikaa Ashok Advocate sr.11182 +1 cc to M/s.Dr.M.Devendran Advocate sr.11659 +1 cc to M/s.G.Ethirajulu Advocate sr.11453 +1 cc to Government Pleader sr.11449 W.A.No.291 of 2012 aa16/03/2016