AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.04.2013 of the Enquiry Officer cum Deputy General Manager, Chennai, the fourth respondent herein, rejecting the request of the petitioner dated 20.02.2013, 16.03.2013 and 08.04.2013, for supply of certain documents, as not relevant for the charges framed against the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the said authority to furnish documents within a stipulated time.
The petitioner is a District Volley Ball coach. On 03.05.2013, the Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, the first respondent herein, has placed the petitioner under suspension contemplating enquiry into grave charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Charges have been framed on 10.12.2012 by the Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and they are as under:
Charge No. 1:
Misbehaved with the girl students staying in the hostel of Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, undergoing training in volley ball, and also given sexual harassment to them.
Charge No. 2:
By misbehaving with the above girl students, he had violated Rule 20-B of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules (Rule 58 of the Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority Service Rules).
The statement of imputations in support of the aforesaid charges are as follows:
Charge No. 1:
The girl students who are staying in Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, undergoing training in volley ball, had given a complaint to the District Sports Officer that the petitioner misbehaved with them and also given sexual harassment. In this connection, when the Regional Senior Manager, Tirunelveli Region, on 23.11.2012, conducted enquiry with the girl students in the hostel of Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, it is learnt that when one S. Srividya and S. Iniya, belonging to Volley Ball section 11th Standard, were taken to Erode in a bus for a volley ball match between the Sports Hostels, on 12.10.2012, M. Arul Bose, the petitioner, tried to misbehave with S. Iniya. Moreover, even during the training time, he misbehaved with the girl students.
Charge No. 2:
He violated the conditions stipulated u/s 20-B of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules (Rule 58 of the Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority Service Rules). As per this Rule, no Government servant should give sexual harassment to any woman in the place of working. But since, he had given sexual harassment to the girl students who were under his training, he violated the Rule.
The documents sought to be marked during the Departmental enquiry, are as under:
1) The complaint given by the Nagercoil Sports Hostel Volley Ball students to the District Sports Officer.
2) The Enquiry Report Letter No. 628/2012 dated 26.11.2012 by the Regional Senior Manager, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu.
3) The copy of the Rule 20-B of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.
The list of witnesses as per Annexure-IV to the charge memorandum are as follows:
District Sports Officer, Nagercoil.
Regional Senior Manager, Tirunelveli Region.
S. Srividya
S. Iniya
R. Varsha
R. Mythili
F. Abijoshia
V. Eswari
P. Suganya
The Regional Senior Manager, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli, has submitted a report in Na.Ka. No. 628/2012 dated 26.11.2012, to the Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, the first respondent herein, inter alia, stating that he had conducted a personal enquiry on 23.11.2012 and he has also enquired two girl students, who have deposed that the petitioner has misbehaved with the girl students and also threatened female coaches. Hence he has sought for appointment of female coach in the Hostel. He has also enclosed the original complaint given by the girl students. Charge memorandum has been framed on 10.12.2012. Material on record also discloses that about seven girl students have signed the complaint alleging that the petitioner has indulged in misconduct. The complaint reads as follows:
Sir, we are studying in Nagercoil Sports Hostel. We have a request. While the girl students from Nagercoil Sports Hostel are going to school in the bus, the persons coming from outside are misbehaving with the girl students. Later, our Volley Ball Coach Mr. Arul Bose, misbehaved with us during the training time, and also at Erode when we went there for volley ball competition. Therefore, we request to appoint a female volley ball coach for us.
On receipt of the charge memorandum, the petitioner has made a representation dated 02.01.2013, to the Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, denying the charges. He has also sought for copies of certain documents, so as to enable him to furnish his reply. The Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, has sent a reply dated 24.01.2013, stating that statement of imputations and relevant documents have already been furnished to the petitioner. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner has submitted further representations on 20.02.2013 and 16.03.2013 asking for certain details as to how many persons had participated in the tournaments conducted during 2012-2013, the names of coaches, names of the students studied in the hostels and many particulars for the entire year 2012-2013. By proceedings dated 05.04.2013, the Enquiry Officer cum Deputy General Manager, Chennai, the fourth respondent herein, has directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 18.04.2013. Subsequently, the enquiry has been postponed. Again the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 08.04.2013 and sought for time. After considering the representations dated 20.02.2013, 16.03.2013 and 08.04.2013, the Enquiry Officer cum Deputy General Manager, rejected his request.
Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Ms. J. Anandhavalli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above said documents are required to prove that the very initiation of the departmental proceedings was purely motivated. According to her, none of the complainants were eligible to participate in the tournaments and therefore, a false complaint has been levelled against the petitioner. She further submitted that though an allegation has been made against the petitioner by some of the girl students, the Regional Senior Manager, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Tirunelveli Region, has exaggerated the misconduct, in his report dated 26.11.2012. She further submitted that, to establish the motive against the District Sports Officer, Sports Development Authority of India, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the third respondent herein, who is instrumental in obtaining false statements against the petitioner, the documents sought for, are required for the defence. It is also her contention that it is not for the Enquiry Officer to decide which document is required for the defence to establish motive, and rejecting the request amounts to denial of principles of natural justice. For the above said reasons, she prayed to set aside the impugned order and consequently direct the respondents to furnish the documents required.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
Material on record shows that a specific complaint has been made by seven girl students, residents of the hostel, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, that the petitioner has misbehaved with them. The complaint has been addressed to the District Sports Officer, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
On receipt of the complaint, action has been taken by the Regional Senior Manager, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli. He has made a personal enquiry on 23.11.2012. He has also enquired two girl students. During his personal enquiry, he has also noticed that there was a complaint by the District Kabbadi Association also. The Regional Senior Manager, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Tirunelveli Region, has observed that due to fear some of the girl students do not even come forward to submit the details and that there is an apprehension in the mind of the girl students. Therefore, he has sought for appropriate action to be taken against the writ petitioner and also to appoint a suitable female coach. The Regional Senior Manager, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Tirunelveli Region, has enclosed copy of the original complaint of the affected girl students. Considering the material placed before him, by letter dated 03.12.2012, the Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, has placed the petitioner under suspension. The suspension has been followed by a charge memorandum dated 10.12.2012, and appointment of the Deputy General Manager, Chennai, as Enquiry Officer. Upon receipt of the charge memorandum, the petitioner has made representations dated 20.02.2013, 16.03.2013 and 08.04.2013 for furnishing of certain documents, stated supra. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the same, rejected the request on the ground that they are not relevant to the charges framed against him. The charges made against the petitioner are specific. Statement of imputations have been appended to the charges. It is stated that documents sought to be marked during oral enquiry have been furnished. According to the petitioner, the documents sought for in his representations dated 20.02.2013, 16.03.2013 and 08.04.2013 are required for the purpose of proving motive against the third respondent, viz. the District Sports Officer, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not for the Enquiry Officer to consider the relevancy of the documents sought for, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the said contentions, for the reason that, it is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to consider as to whether there are materials sufficient to establish the charges framed. If documents sought for, are not relevant to the charges framed against a delinquent, it is always open to the Enquiry Officer to reject the same. When there is a departmental enquiry pertaining to specific charges, the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority should be given the latitude to decide which document is required for the purpose of proof or defence. The contention of the petitioner that whatever documents are sought for, by a charged official should be furnished before commencement of the enquiry into charges, cannot be accepted. Before or after commencement of an enquiry, it is always open to the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be, to decide the relevancy of the documents sought for either to prove or disprove the charges. A perusal of the representations dated 20.02.2013, 16.03.2013 and 08.04.2013, shows that the charged official/writ petitioner, has sought for certain documents relating to the entire year 2012-2013. Preponderance of probability is the test in departmental proceedings. It is for the disciplinary authority to establish the charges framed against the delinquent on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced, on behalf of the Department. As a matter of defence, it is always open to the charged official to cross-examine the departmental witnesses examined in the oral enquiry, with reference to oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Department. It is open to the charged official to adduce defence evidence. At this juncture, the charged official can refer to the documents which are relevant only for the purpose of disproving the charges, on facts and evidence. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents sought for, is required to prove the motive against the District Sports Officer, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, cannot be accepted. The District Sports Officer, Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, is one of the witnesses cited in the charge memorandum. The charged official can very well cross examine the said witness. If the third respondent was instrumental in inducing the girl students to give false complaint against the petitioner, the same can be elicited during cross examination of the said witnesses. Under the guise of non-supply of certain documents, irrelevant to the charges, no charged official should be allowed to protract the enquiry proceedings. The charges are grievous in nature. The girl students have come forward to lodge a specific complaint against the writ petitioner, that he has misbehaved with them and the matter has to be enquired.
For the reasons stated supra, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has no authority to decide the relevancy of the documents sought for by the petitioner. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.