PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. NATARAJAN & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/07/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 30.4.1996 in OA Nos. 3804/94.
The admitted facts are that on 10.2.1987, the respondent misbehaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them Into the lock up in the earlier hours, i.e., at 0200 hours. When two person intervened,they were beaten by them ; As a consequence, an enquiry was held and a criminal case was also instituted against the respondents. When they were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, they failed to appear in spite of several opportunities given to them. As a result, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to record the findings and recommend imposition of the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. After the receipt of the report, The disciplinary authority had issued notices to the respondents as to why major penalty should not be given to the respondents. The respondents asked for opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses and sought fresh enquiry on the ground that by that date the criminal case filed against the respondents was withdrawn. The competent authority declined to accede to the request and imposed the punishment of removal from service. Feeling aggrieved, They filed O.As. in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the O.As. on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not consider the evidence to justify the finding of proof of charges and violated the principles of natural justice. We find that the Tribunal was not justified in reaching the conclusion for the reason that the Tribunal itself has categorically recorded findings at pages 8-10 as under :
"the applicants were asked to
appear before the Enquiry Officer,
but, They wrote to them saying that
since the Criminal case was
proceeding against them in a
Criminal Court they would suggest
that the departmental proceedings
might be postponed till the
disposal of the Criminal
proceedings. The Enquiry Officer
was right in holding the view that
there was no bar for departmental
proceedings to go while the
criminal proceedings were being
conducted at the appropriate forum.
The applicants had chosen not to
participate in the departmental
proceedings because of the reason
that the criminal proceedings and
the departmental proceedings should
not go simultaneously. Though
ignorance of law is not an excuse,
the Enquiry Officer should have
taken some steps to convince the
applicants of the settled principle
of law that both the criminal and
departmental proceedings could go
simultaneously and advised them to
participate in the enquiry. But the
applicants did not yield and only
after the criminal was withdrawn
against them, they chose to appear
before the authorities concerned
for the enquiry. The Enquiry
Officer did not wait for the stage
to materialise and he passed his
ex-parte findings. The applicants
refused to appear for the oral
enquiry instead of several
opportunities giver to them.
Therefore, it was decided to
examine the prosecution witness in
the absence of the applicants.
After the examination of P.Ws. the
applicants were directed to appear
to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses if they so desired. Even
then they did not appear.
Therefore, the Enquiry was treated
as closed after examining the
prosecution witnesses and a finding
was arrived at based on the
materials available with the
prosecution side. The applicants
were even asked to submit their
list of witnesses to be examined as
Defence Witnesses, but they did not
submit their written statement of
defence if they desired, but they
did not do that also. Finally, the
applicants wrote saying that they
submitted their representation to
the Superintendent of Police and he
replied and after recieving the
reply from the Superintendent of
police, a representation for the
change of Enquiry Officer was
turned down by the Superintendent
of Police. Finally, enquiry was
closed and ex-parte minute was
prepared. Based on the findings of
the Enquiry Officers" report in
both the cases, the Superintendent
of Police awarded the punishment of
reduction in time scale of pay for
three years with cumulative effect
to the applicant in O.A. No.3804/91
and removed the applicant in O.A.
3805/91 from service."
In view of these findings, we think that no procedural illegalities were committed in conducting the enquiry. The question is: what punishment should be awarded to the respondents? The Enquiry Officer himself has recommended to impose penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. We find that the Enquiry Officer was justified. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the removal from service. Instead, the disciplinary authority is directed to impose the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. The respondents are not entitled for any back wages.