The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Others vs A. Johnson and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—M/s. Muthumani Doraisamy, learned counsel, accept notice for the respondents.

The instant intra-Court appeals are directed against the common 23 March 2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in dated W.P. Nos. 18533 to 18535 of 2013 respectively. Thus, since all the instant intra Court appeals arise from the common order, the same are considered and decided by this common judgment.

For the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their arraignment in the instant intra-Court appeals.

While the respondents in W.P. Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2015 filed the instant writ petitions, being W.P. Nos. 18533 and 18535 of 2013 respectively, calling in question, the legality and validity of the Charge Memos dated 07 June 2013 and for a consequential direction to the first appellant to promote them as Assistant Accounts Officer and Superintendent respectively, on par with their juniors, the respondent in W.A. No. 1558 of 2015 filed the instant writ petition being W.P. No. 18534 of 2013, assailing the second respondent''s resolution dated 24 November 2012 insofar as it directs conversion of charge under Clause 9(1) into one under Clause 9(2) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and Class IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) By-laws, 1983 (for short "the By-laws"?) and the order dated 07 June 2013 passed by the first respondent.

The indisputable facts in nutshell are that while the respondent in W.A. No. 1559 of 2015 was working as Assistant, Pa.Ka.Ku. Zone-V, he was issued with a charge memo dated 26 May 2011 under the provisions of Clause 9(1) of the By-laws, containing two charges, viz., (i) causing loss of revenue to Chennai Corporation in collusion with one S. Thangaprakasam, Assistant, by altering the actual measurements entered in measurement book qua construction work of buildings at Ward No. 76 and thereby facilitating extra payment to the contractor and (ii) thus, violated Clause 20 of the by-laws. Followed by issuance of charge memo, a proper enquiry proceedings was initiated and on conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the respondent was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide order dated 28 November 2011. (While the translated version of the punishment orders dated 28 November 2011 produced before us indicates stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, the counter affidavit and the impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge indicate stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect). Thereagainst, the respondent preferred an appeal before the second appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, a resolution being Resolution No. 207 of 2012 was passed on 19 July 2012 in the Meeting of the Recruitment Committee, stating that the nature of punishment imposed was not in accordance with the charge levelled and as such, it was resolved to initiate further proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent in W.A. No. 1599 of 2015 had come up with the writ petition being W.P. No. 18535 of 2013. The other two respondents, viz., R. Gangadevi and A. Johnson were also treated in the identical lines and they also filed the instant writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 18533 and 18534 of 2013, as aforestated. All the three writ petitions were taken up together by the learned Single Judge and disposed of by a common order.

The learned Single Judge examined the facts of the case from all angles and recorded the finding that the respondents had already undergone the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect before a decision was taken to initiate fresh enquiry for major punishment for the same incident. The learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment rendered in D. Narayanan Vs. District Revenue Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, , by a Division Bench of this Court, came to the conclusion that the appellants are not permitted to initiate a second enquiry on the same allegations, which led to imposition of punishment on the respondents, especially, when the respondents had already undergone the punishment imposed on them.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

Incontrovertibly, the allegation of misconduct made in the charge memo dated 26 May 2011 was examined under proper disciplinary proceedings, which eventually held the respondents guilty. Accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect was imposed on the respondents vide separate proceedings dated 28 November 2011, which were given effect to immediately and the respondents had undergone the said punishment imposed on them. During the pendency of appeals, the appellants have decided to initiate a fresh enquiry on the same set of allegations which stood concluded. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that a fresh enquiry on the same allegations is not permissible and it amounts to double jeopardy.

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and proper warranting no interference.

Resultantly, the intra-Court appeals stand dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.