S. Muruganandam vs The Secretary to the Government, Highways HL-2 Department

S. Rajeswaran, J.—The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a Civil Engineering graduate, joined Highways Department as Assistant Engineer, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 15.12.1975. He was promoted as Additional Divisional Engineer in the year 1984. While he was serving as Additional Divisional Engineer for a period from 1.4.1989 to 13.6.1990, the petitioner check measured four works, viz., construction of drainage in Avanipuram Town Panchayat. While super checking the above works, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Madurai stated that due to rain, several places have been water logged making to open up the foundation. The sub soil foundation in all the places were clay soil. Hence, the foundation concrete (bottom) in undulating and varying in depth. The Divisional Engineer while super checking has found a difference of 1 to 3 cm in the depth of foundation in some places and has submitted his report stating that there is a loss of Rs. 6,533/- to the Government. Following the report, a charge memo dated 13.10.1993 was issued by the respondent. An enquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the four charges made against the petitioner. The enquiry officer has held that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved and submitted his report dated 15.12.1995 to that effect. Whereas the Government, after receipt of report sent by the enquiry officer, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that the Government is accepting the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of the charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and held the charge No. 3 as partly proved and therefore, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation.

The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.03.1997. Consequent upon the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Government treated the charge No. 3 as partly proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect besides, recovery of Rs. 1438/- from his salary. The review preferred by the petitioner is also pending before the Government. Hence, the above petition for the aforesaid relief.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Edwin Prabhakar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents available on record.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the enquiry officer has rendered findings on 15.12.1995 holding that the charges have not been proved. In respect of the charge No. 3, the enquiry officer has held that the petitioner check measured works in which boosted measurements have been assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,438/- only and has recommended that the charge could be dropped sympathetically since the loss is very meagre. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would add that the Government disregarded the findings given by the enquiry officer and issued a notice on 7.1.1997 calling for explanation from the petitioner holding that the charge No. 3 has been partly proved. According to the learned Counsel, the Government has not given any reason for punishment imposed as against the findings given by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the Government to the petitioner is unsustainable both in law and on facts.

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that since the enquiry officer has held that there was a loss to the tune of Rs. 1438/- and only on that score, the Government has imposed a punishment against the petitioner. The recommendation made by the enquiry officer to the extent that the case of the petitioner could be considered sympathetically has not been accepted by the Government. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the order which has been passed by the Government, not accepting the recommendation made by the enquiry officer in his report.

I have considered the rival submissions carefully.

On a perusal of the records and the report of the enquiry officer, I find that the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the enquiry officer in respect of charge No. 3 and therefore chose to send a notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the Government imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect besides ordering recovery of Rs. 1438/- in three instalments.

The entire controversy boil down to the charge No. 3 only as the Government accepted the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of charge No. 1, 2 and 4. According to the Government, charge No. 3 is partly proved as even the enquiry officer has stated that the petitioner has caused a loss of Rs. 1438/-. But the enquiry officer recommended for not taking any action as the amount was meagre. In as much as the loss caused has been proved by the enquiry officer, the Government decided to ask for an explanation for which the petitioner sent an explanation stating that the proposed action is not correct. After consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, who recommended the stoppage of increment and the recovery as punishment, the Government decided to impose the same punishment.

If the entire materials are considered in the proper perspective, I am of the considered view that for the partly proved charge No. 3, the double punishment imposed by the Government is highly disproportionate and excessive.

Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect alone. In so far as the recovery is concerned, I am not interfering with the same considering the fact that even the enquiry officer found that the loss has been caused by the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has retired on superannuation, the first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court setting aside the punishment imposed by the Government, and extend the attendant benefits to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the recovery is not already made, the same shall be recovered and all other eligible amounts paid to the petitioner within the time stipulated above.

In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed by setting aside the order dt.20.9.2000 in so far as imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect alone. No cost.