M. Shanmugam vs The Secretary to Government

Being aggrieved by the Government Order in G.O.(2D)No. 37, Home (Transport-II) Department dated 28.01.2009, whereunder a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect was imposed against the appellant herein, the writ petitioner/appellant came up with the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge, having examined all the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that no grounds were available to interfere with the impugned order and consequently the writ petition was dismissed.

The instant appeal is preferred against the said order on several grounds, mainly the enquiry officer has not examined all the relevant facts while holding the second charge as proved, when other two charges were not found proved. It was further contended that the enquiry was proceeded on the basis of conjectures and surmises that if a car is purchased by the wife, that must have been funded by the writ petitioner / appellant.

The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner / appellant while working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II at Coimbatore, was served a charge memo dated 12.11.2004 on three counts. The petitioner / appellant submitted his reply on 01.02.2005. Being not satisfied, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 08.11.2006. Thereafter, an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner / appellant to file his reply to the enquiry report, which was also filed on 27.02.2008. Agreeing with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the aforestated punishment.

We have perused the enquiry report. The enquiry was instituted on the following three charges :

"When you were working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Gr.I in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (North)

(i) You were found keeping in your seat laminated Xerox copies and Original Driving Licences of some persons without valid reasons with a view to collect bribe from the Driving Licence holders.

(ii) You had purchased a Motor Car TN 38 B 2133 for Rs.1,23,000/- from Thiru V.Santhanam, Director, M/s.Benzer Cars & Services (P) Ltd., and got it registered in the name of your wife, Tmt. Santhi without obtaining permission and sold the same without obtaining permission from the concerned authority. When the account slip relating to the purchase was recovered from your possession during surprise check by appropriate authority, You did not reveal the transaction with a view to conceal the same which is unbecoming conduct of a public servant.

(iii) You had caused delay in remitting Flag Day Fund to Regional Transport Office without bringing the cash on hand in to record and maintaining proper accounts. You also did not fill up details such as name of donor, date of collection etc., which means temporary misappropriation of funds.

Thus you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973."

Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 3 were not proved. In respect of the second charge, it was held that without obtaining permission from the concerned authority, a car was purchased in the name of his wife. It was observed in the enquiry report that the case of the delinquent officer is that his wife purchased the car on account of her earning from the provisional store run by her. But, the relevant findings in the Enquiry officer''s report as regards examination of Tmt.Shanthi by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption officials in respect of Charge No. 2 reads as under :

Tmt. Shanthi, w/o Thiru M.Shanmugam was examined by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption officials. She at that time had given a statement that she had no separate source of income on her own. Further she did not give any statement about the existence of provision store business in her control. She also admitted before the official conducting surprise check that her husband Thiru M.Shanmugam had purchased the car with his own source of income and he was using the car. Therefore, the Enquiry officer gave a finding relying on the statement made by Tmt.Shanthi at the time of surprise check and thereafter before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption officials that she had no separate source of income.

On perusal, it appears that the enquiry officer has not examined all relevant documents and also not examined the wife. Believing the statement recorded by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption officials, the second charge had been held as proved. We are of the view that the enquiry in respect of Charge No. 2 cannot be held as proper and conclusive.

So far as the first and third charges are concerned, the disciplinary authority has accepted the findings of the enquiry authority. Thus, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to set aside the findings in respect of the second charge and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority to initiate a fresh enquiry from the stage of reply to the charge sheet, if so advised and take appropriate action, thereafter, in accordance with law and on its own merit. We make it clear that the observation made hereinabove in the judgment will not come in the way of proper enquiry on merit by the disciplinary / enquiry authority.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed with the above observations. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.2011 in W.P.No. 11076 of 2009 is set aside. No costs.