T.Suseela, Junior Inspector v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 22.07.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.(MD)Nos.24693 of 2018 amd 1282 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.22390 and 22391 of 2018 T.Suseela ... Petitioner in both W.Ps Vs.

1.The Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 51.

2.The Deputy Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 51.

3.The Deputy Registrar, Nagercoil Region, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.24693 of 2018 1.Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development, Madhavaram, Chennai - 51.

2.Mr.G.Chrisdudas, The Deputy Registrar/The Deputy Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development (In charge), Office of the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram, Chennai -51.

1/16

3.The Deputy Registrar (Milk), Nagercoil Region, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.1282 of 2019 PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.24693 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.15058/E2/2016 dated 05.12.2018 and quash the same as illegal. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.1282 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned temporary promotion panel for the post of Senior Inspector published by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 8271/E1/2017, dated 10.10.2018 and quash the same as illegal inso far as the non inclusion of the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to include her name in the promotion panel for the post of Senior Inspector.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew (in both W.Ps) For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj (in both W.Ps) Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed, to quash the impugned temporary promotion panel for the post of Senior Inspector published by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.8271/E1/2017, dated 10.10.2018 and 2/16

to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 15058/E2/2016 dated 05.12.2018 and to direct the respondents to include her name in the promotion panel for the post of Senior Inspector. 2.The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the third respondent office on 04.06.2009 and after being promoted as Assistant on 10.04.2015. By the proceedings of the first respondent, the post held by the petitioner was converted as Junior Inspector from 03.03.2016 and the petitioner had been working in the third respondent office at the time of filing of the Writ Petition. One Mr.

Christudas who took charge as Deputy Registrar in the third respondent office, had subjected the petitioner to physical and mental harassment and sought for favours for which the petitioner could not budge, as the result of which, the said person had visited the petitioner with four charges dated 23.07.2015, 11.08.2015, 20.08.2015 and 07.12.2015 respectively. Though charges were framed without issuing charge memo and without giving an opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry, the punishment of censure for two charge memos and three years increment cut without cumulative effect for other two charge memos came to be imposed on the petitioner.

3/16

3.Following which, the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the first respondent, assailing the punishment of three years increment cut imposed by the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 26.06.2015 and 06.11.2017 respectively. Under such circumstances, the second respondent has drawn the impugned temporary promotion panel for the post of Senior Inspector dated 10.10.2018, in which the petitioner's name has been deferred, for the reason that a charge memo under Rule 17(b), has been pending against the petitioner. Only after the deferment of promotion by the second respondent, the petitioner came to know that the charge memo under Rule 17(b) is pending against him. While so, she was called for domestic enquiry proceedings by the second respondent, which was scheduled to be held on 15.09.

2016, in which the petitioner replied in writing by submitting that she cannot participate in the enquiry without being issued with the charge memo and informed of the charges framed against her, requesting to defer the enquiry until she is served with the official documents. Since the respondents continuously refrained from serving the necessary documents, the petitioner left with no other opinion, challenged the impugned temporary promotional panel dated 10.10.2018, by filing this Writ Petition.

4.While being so, even without serving the petitioner with necessary documents, the Department proceeded to conduct the domestic enquiry in 4/16

which, one K.Danalakshmi, Deputy Registrar, Milk Production, Dindigul, came to be appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer by her proceeding in her enquiry report bearing Na.Ka.No.1140/A1/2016, dated 24.07.2017, had categorically observed that the petitioner was never served with the charge memo, as the result of which, she was subjected to a handicapped condition that she could not submit her explanation and had sought for deferring the enquiry until she had been served with the charge memo. That apart, it has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the necessary documents required for conduct of enquiry proceedings and to conclude the same diligently were not placed before her by the respondent authorities.

In view of the same, the enquiry officer had recommended to reopen the enquiry by opening a new file and thereby, issuing the charge memo to the petitioner and giving her opportunity of hearing and thereafter, proceed against her by means of a domestic enquiry in the manner known to law. However, without heeding to the recommendation of enquiry report, the second respondent had called upon explanation for the said enquiry report in Na.Ka.No.15058/E2/2016 dated 05.12.2018 Challenging the same, W.P.(MD)No.1282 of 2019 came to be filed. 5.The petitioners are one and the same in both the Writ Petitions.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as far as W.P.(MD)No.24693 of 2018 is concerned, though four punishments came to be imposed on the petitioner, on the basis of the four charges dated 23.07.2015, 11.08.2015, 20.08.2015 and 07.12.2015 respectively, none of the charge memo came to be served on the petitioner. She was also not given opportunity of hearing in the disciplinary proceedings, before concluding the proceedings as against her by imposing the punishment of Censure for two charge memos and three years increment cut for other two charge memos. In addition to that, it is contended that yet another charge memo is pending as against the petitioner, and the petitioner's name was not included in the impugned promotional panel dated 10.10.2018, drawn by the second respondent for the post of Senior Inspector.

7.In the meanwhile, as far as the said charge memo is concerned, an enquiry officer was also appointed by the first respondent/Commissioner. The learned counsel contended that, the said enquiry Officer in her report dated 24.07.2017, has categorically concluded that the petitioner has never been visited with charge memo nor the respondents have cooperated for the conduct of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer by placing relevant records before her. In view of the same, the Enquiry Officer had concluded recommending to open a fresh file thereby, furnishing the entire relevant documents to the petitioner and 6/16

thereafter, proceed as against the petitioner in the manner known to law. 8.In this point of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that one Chrisdudas, who had been the District Registrar in the third respondent office only out of his personal grudge had issued four count of charges at the first instance, for which various punishments came to be inflicted on the petitioner without conduct of enquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even the charge with respect to the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings dated 24.07.2017, has been initiated by the said Chrisdudas, who served as Deputy Registrar at the third respondent office during the year 2015- 2016.

In the meanwhile, he was given in-charge of the Office of Deputy Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, in the office of Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram, Chennai, negating the recommendations of the enquiry Officer's report dated 24.07.2017, instead of opening a new file and initiating a disciplinary proceedings afresh by furnishing all the necessary documents to the petitioner, the second respondent had proceeded to issue a fast memo dated 05.12.2018 in Na.Ka.No.15058/E2/2016, requiring the petitioner to submit her explanation for the enquiry report in Na.Ka.No. 1140/A1/2017, dated 25.07.2017.

malafides and pressed for allowing both the Writ Petitions. 9.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in W.P. (MD)No.1282 of 2019 submitted that the charges were framed by charge memo dated 17.12.2015, as against the petitioner and it was duly served on the petitioner well before the panel crucial period and the petitioner had attended the domestic enquiry before the Deputy Registrar, (Diarying) Dindigul. The charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was framed against the petitioner with respect to negligence of her official regular duties, i.

e, non entry of tapals in Personal Register which was received from High Courts, Head office, Government, District Collectorate, etc, consolidate personal register and other performance monitoring register to be submitted to the higher authorities and that apart, more than 40 Government files relating to Administrative matters, were misplaced by the petitioner. In view of the same, there is nothing wrong in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed on the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner already filed W.P.(MD)Nos.

the appeal. Pursuant to the same, all the punishments were converted into Censure. In the Charge memo pertaining to both the Writ Petitions, the punishment has been reduced to three years increment cut without cumulative effect to Censure. As far as pending Rule 17(b) charges are concerned, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct domestic enquiry and on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, an explanation has been called for from the petitioner and there is nothing illegal in the same and the petitioner may be directed to submit her explanation for the aforesaid fast memo issued by the second respondent dated 05.12.2018 and pressed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record.

11.The proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, namely, K.Dhanalakshmi, Deputy Registrar (Diarying), Dindigul, who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer, by the order of the first respondent is extracted as follows :- 9/16

10/16

11/16

12.This Court has anxiously perused the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 24.07.2017, wherein the Enquiry Officer has carefully recorded that Mr.G.Chirududas, Deputy Registrar (Dairy Development), Office Assistant Mr.Syerudin, Mr.Andruros Devadas and Mr.Palanisamy have together hidden the distribution register concerned and the Deputy Registrar, Dairy Development, Nagercoil, office staffs have been duly enquired by the Enquiry 12/16

Officer in this regard and the letter has been enclosed in the above extracted proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, dated 24.07.2017. Categorically recording that the Department failed to cooperate by producing necessary documents for the conduct of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had concluded that a fresh file has to be reopened for proceeding as against the petitioner or the petitioner may be given with an opportunity of hearing in the pending proceedings, if any, on the file of the Deputy Registrar, Dairying Development, Nagercoil. Following which, the impugned fast memo in Na.Ka.No.15058/E2/2016 ,dated 05.12.2018, came to be served upon the petitioner by the second respondent, Mr.Chrisdudas, who holds the post of Deputy Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development (incharge) in the capacity of the Deputy Commissioner.

13.In view of the fact that the Enquiry Officer in her report, has recommended for fresh initiation of proceedings as against the petitioner, particularly mentioning that she was not visited with charge memo, the deferment of the petitioner's name in the temporary promotional panel drawn for the post of Senior Inspector dated 10.10.2018, cannot be justified in any manner. In the absence of proved charges or atleast the respondents having duly proved the issuance of charge memo as against the petitioner by producing the necessary documents before the Enquiry Officer at the time of enquiry 13/16

facilitating her to conclude the enquiry effectively by perusing the necessary documents the respondents ought not to have deferred the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the impugned promotional panel drawn for the post of Senior Inspector dated 10.10.2018. Accordingly, the impugned promotional panel for the post of Senior Inspector published by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Senior Inspector in the panel dated 10.10.2018, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Hence, W.P.(MD)No.24693 of 2018 is allowed. 14.As far as W.P.(MD)No.

1282 of 2019 is concerned, pursuant to the receipt of the enquiry report, the second respondent in the capacity of the Commissioner, has called for explanation from the petitioner on the enquiry report dated 25.07.2017. When the report itself has been concluded recording the fact that charge memo concerned has not been issued to the petitioner, issuance of impugned fast charge memo without enclosing the charge memo is per se illegal. Thus, the said enquiry initiated against the petitioner would not serve any purpose for the reason that the petitioner will not be in a position to give any explanation in the absence of charge memo in the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against her. Accordingly, the impugned proceeding dated 05.12.2018, is hereby quashed.

15.In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 22.07.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mrn To 1.The Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 51.

2.The Deputy Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 51.

3.The Deputy Registrar, Nagercoil Region, Kanyakumari District.

15/16

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Mrn W.P.(MD)Nos.24693 of 2018 amd 1282 of 2019 22.07.2024 16/16