Madras High Court
)The Agricultural Production ... vs M.Sampath on 10 June, 2015
Bench: S.Manikumar, G.Chockalingam
Madurai.?BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Writ Appeals(MD)Nos.316 of 2015
to 318 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)Nos.2, 2, 2, 3 and 3 of 2015
1)The Agricultural Production Commissioner
and Principal Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2)The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai. ... Appellants in all W.As
Vs
M.Sampath ... Respondent in W.A.316/15
M.Premkumar ... Respondent in W.A.317/15
P.Palanichamy ... Respondent in W.A.318/15
Appeals filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
passed in W.P(MD)Nos.5961 to 5963 of 2011 dated 22.04.2014.
!For Appellants (in all W.As) : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl.G.P
^For Respondent (in all W.As) : Mr.S.Visvalingam
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Being aggrieved by a common order, made in W.P(MD)Nos.5961 to 5963 of 2011, dated 22.04.2014, quashing punishments impugned against the petitioners, in each of the above writ petitions, present writ appeals have been filed.
2.Facts deduced from the material on record and the impugned judgment, are that the petitioners were serving as Agricultural Officers in 1982 and 1983 respectively. For the alleged irregularities, in not properly nurturing Cocunut Saplings, procured in the year 1984-85, which resulted in damage, the respondents/writ petitioners were proceeded departmentally, for the loss caused to the Government. After the abovesaid incident, during the year 1984-85, individual charge memorandums were issued on 13.10.1998. All the respondents/writ petitioners submitted their reply. Thereafter, the enquiry officer held the charges, as proved, in the year 2011. Thus, for the alleged incident of the year 1984-85, charges have been framed in 1998, after 13 years.
3.During the hearing of the appeal, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the department, in which the respondents/writ petitioners, were working, was bifurcated and he fairly submitted that after seven years of bifurcation, charge memorandum, to the individuals, was issued.
4.When the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the charges as proved, the disciplinary authority, namely, Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, who framed the charges, after going through the charges, evidence on record, findings recorded by the enquiry officer, further/additional representations submitted by the individuals, found that there were no substantial materials, against the respondents/writ petitioners and therefore, recommended to the Government, for absolving the respondents, of the charges, framed against them.
5.Material on record discloses that the Government seemed to have sought for an opinion, from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (hereinafter referred to as TNPSC) under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. On 02.12.2009, TNPSC has offered its opinion, to extricate the respondents/writ petitioners, of the charges. After two years thereafter, the Government have passed separate Government Orders in G.O(3-D)Nos.30, 31 and 32, Agriculture Department, dated 14.02.2011, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment, for 18 months, with cumulative effect, on each of the respondents/writ petitioners and also ordered recovery, from their salaries, after fixing a specified sum, towards the alleged loss caused by them. Thus, punishments have been inflicted, after nearly 27 years, after the alleged irregularity.
6.Therefore, on the abovesaid circumstances, when the punishment orders issued in G.O(3-D)Nos.30, 31 and 32, Agriculture Department, dated 14.02.2011, were challenged, Writ Court, at paragraphs 8 to 11, has ordered as follows:-
?8. The case of the petitioners is an example to the classic case of no evidence. The entire facts and circumstances leading to pass the impugned order by the Government, are on the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, who upon perusal of the documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioners did not hold water and reported to the Government that the charges levelled against the petitioners may be dropped. Moreover, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has also addressed a letter dated 02.12.2009, to the first respondent stating that the charges levelled against the petitioners may be dropped. On the contrary, the Government imposed the punishments on the petitioners by simply observing that the charges levelled against the petitioners have been proved, despite the fact that detailed objections as well as documents evidences have also been placed before passing the impugned orders.
9. Here, it is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of this Court in C.Kanagaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P.Nos.15151 and 16090 of 2010, decided on 20.03.2012], wherein, it is held as follows:
"9. At the outset, it is to be stated that this is a clear and classic case of no evidence. it is pertinent to note that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as incorporated in the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 03.12.2008 makes it abundantly clear that the Enquiry Officer has rendered such finding of holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved by mere presumptions and assumptions and without pointing out any evidence available on record. The yet another factor to be borne in mind of this Court is to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 21.02.2002, wherein the Disciplinary Authority has not pointed out a single piece of material or evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and on the other hand, the Disciplinary Authority mainly placed reliance on the Enquiry Officer's report without application of independent mind and arrived at the conclusion to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved, in an arbitrary and mechanical fashion."
10. Since the impugned orders did not deal with any of the factual as well as documentary evidence, the same would not be sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed.
11. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.?
7.Assailing the correctness of the common order, extracted supra, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the Government cannot be said to have committed any mistake, in agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. He further submitted that when the report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, or the recommendations of the TNPSC, is not binding on the Government, punishments imposed, based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, ought not to have been set aside. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that judicial review of an administrative action, is restricted, only to the process, which culminated into a decision and that courts are not empowered to interfere with the correctness of the finding of facts, if there are basic materials, to support the conclusion of the disciplinary authority or the Government, as the case may be.
8.Per contra, by inviting the attention of this Court, and placing reliance on a catena of decisions, on the aspect of delay in initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, obligation on the part of the Government, to set out the reasons on evidence, when it disagrees with the views expressed by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai/the disciplinary authority, views of TNPSC, mandate to pass a speaking order, reflecting the application of mind on the part of the authority, reasons to be assigned by the authority connecting the materials, on which, conclusions are arrived at, Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, submitted that there are absolutely no reasons or evidence, to impose punishments, against the respondents/Agricultural Officers, after 27 years. He also submitted that ordeal of facing disciplinary proceedings, for nearly 27 years, with a ''Damocles Sword'', without any promotion itself, is a penalty to the respondents. He further submitted that no reasonable explanation, has been offered for the delay stated supra.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
9.On the rival submissions, firstly, we deem it fit to consider few decisions, on the aspect of delay in initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and in passing orders:-
(a) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the laches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further.
(b) In State of Punjab and others Vs.Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"9.Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing... "
(c) In M.Balakrishnan and 7 others Vs. The Corporation of Madurai and another reported in 1995 (II) CTC 589 for certain improper acts on the part of the petitioners therein, departmental proceedings were initiated after 14 years. While quashing the said proceedings, a learned single Judge has observed that such proceedings after a long period would result in great prejudice and amount to violation of the principles of natural justice.
(d) In Commissioner, Sankarapuram Panchayat Union etc. Vs. S.A.Abdul Wahab and others reported in 1996 W.L.R.677, a Division Bench of this Court held that if there is unnecessary, unexplained and unjustifiably long delay in initiating departmental proceedings, it would result in causing great prejudice to the person against whom such a proceeding is initiated and it will be a ground for quashing the proceedings.
(e) In B.Loganathan Vs.The Union of India, rep.by the Secretary to Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Department of Local Administration, Pondicherry and another reported in 2000 (III) CTC 351, for the allegations relating to the period of the year 1982, based on a vigilance report, a charge memo was issued in 1997 and the said proceedings were put to challenge. While quashing the charge memo on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay, this Court has observed that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and that the same, violates principles of natural justice. At Paragraph 12 has held as follows:
"12.Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan , 1996 (3) S.C.C. 15 would contend that the scope of judicial review is very limited and sought to distinguish the above referred decisions. No doubt, in the said decision. Their Lordships have observed that it would not be open to the Tribunal or the court to quash the suspension order and charges even at the threshold. The perusal of the judgment does not show the details such as when the incident had taken place and when the Government have initiated action etc. In Union of India v. Ashok Kacker , 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 180, no doubt, Their Lordships have observed that it is open to the delinquent to file his reply to charge-sheet and raise all objections and also invite the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In this case also, no other details have been furnished such the date of occurrence, steps taken by the Government etc. In such circumstances, I am of the view that both the decisions relied on by the Government Pleader are not helpful to their case. I have already stated that even according to the 2nd respondent, the alleged irregularities had taken place in the year 1982 and even after receipt of the report from the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Pondicherry Government in the year 1993 the impugned charge memo was issued only on 5.11.97. The inordinate and unexplained delay vitiates the impugned charge memo and the same is liable to be quashed. As observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (2) S.C.C. 570, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after a lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. Here, in our case, the petitioner has raised a plea that the delay is likely to cause prejudice to him in defending himself. If such plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. I have already stated that the first charge states that the petitioner did not disburse cash from January, 1982 and, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, not even the period is mentioned clearly and like-wise, the statement that cash book was not maintained properly is a bald statement. Further, the nature of the charges relate to day-to-day activities of disbursement of cash and maintenance of registers, which are routine affairs, hence the unexplained delay of 15 years cannot be accepted. It would be impossible for the petitioner to remember the identity of witnesses whom he could summon to appear before the enquiring authority to support his case. Even If he could summon their presence, it would be a doubtful proposition whether they would be in a position to remember that happened more than 15 years back and help him in his defence. Further more, the petitioner may not be in a position to effectively cross- examine the witnesses to be examined on the side of the second respondent in support of the charges. Practically, it would be a doubtful proposition that either the prosecution witnesses or the defence witnesses would be in a position to remember the facts of the case and advance the case of either the department or the petitioner. Under these circumstances and on the facts and circumstances disclosed, I hold that the un-explained inordinate delay will constitute denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself that it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned charge memo must be struck down on this ground alone. By weighing all the factors both for and against the petitioner/delinquent officer quashing the charge memo is just and proper in the circumstances".
(f) In C.P.Harish Vs. The Central Warehousing, represented by its Managing Director, 4/1, Siri Institutiional Area, New Delhi reported in 2000 (IV) CTC 517 for the alleged lapses of the year 1982-1983, charge memos were issued on 20.06.1995 and 14.07.1998 respectively, nearly after 15 years. By observing that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time, which would give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power and that it would be impossible for the delinquent to remember and identify the witnesses, this Court has held that delay constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity to defend herself and it also violates the principles of natural justice and quashed the charges impugned in the above writ petition.
(g) In A.Obaidullah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai and another reported in 2005(5) CTC 380, a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevean Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005(4) CTC 403:2005 SCC (L&S) 861, quashed a disciplinary proceeding which was initiated after 12 years, holding that inordinate and unexplained delay defeats justice.
(h) In Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any further.............."
(i) In P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, this Court after referring to various decisions, held that, "The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interests and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
15. We therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No cost."
(j) In the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk v. N.Sivasamy reported in 2005 (5) CTC 451, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"Though the alleged lapse occurred in the year 1995 and certain charges related to the period 1993-94, the charge memo was issued on 15.07.1997 and served on 23.07.1997, just 7 days before the date of retirement. The contention of the appellant that only with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish, the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored.................. We have already pointed out that though the applicant filed Original Application No.6284/97, challenging the charge memo, dated 15.07.1997, admittedly, no stay was granted. Despite the above fact that the department had not proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the department. According to the applicant, he is 67 years of age as on the date and had rendered 38 years of service in the department. He had undergone sufferings from mental worry, agony, anguish and hardship for all these years. We are satisfied that there is no need to pursue the charge memo, dated 15.07.1997."
(k) In yet another decision in R.Tirupathy and others v. the District Collector, Madurai District and others reported in 2006 (2) CTC 574, this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo, dated 02.02.2005 on the ground that the charges relate to purchase of uniforms during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 and the inordinate delay on the part of the department in issuing a charge memo was not properly explained.
(l) The Supreme Court in M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India and other reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88, quashed the order of removal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority on various grounds particularly, on the ground that initiation of disciplinary proceedings after six years and continuance thereof, for a period of seven years prejudiced the delinquent officer.
(m) In M.Elangovan v. The Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in 2006 (2) CTC 635, this Court, while quashing the second show cause notice on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings, allowed the Writ Petitions holding that the petitioners therein were entitled to all the benefits in accordance with law. The same view has been expressed by this Court in yet another decision in Parameswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (1) CTC 476.
(n) In G.Anand Vs. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and others reported in 2006(5) CTC 723, the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner therein was of the year 1994. Disciplinary action was initiated in the year 2005. Finding that the charge memo had been issued with an inordinate delay, this Court set aside the charge memo impugned in the said writ petition.
(o) In A.Bommusamy Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2007 (3) CTC 518, a Division Bench of this Court has considered a case where disciplinary proceedings was initiated on the verge of retirement. The petitioner was to retire on 31.03.1987. By proceedings dated, 27.02.1987, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for imposing minor penalty. On receipt of the petitioner's explanation, a revised charge memo dated 13.03.1987, involving a procedure for imposing major penalty was issued, just 17 days before retirement. Though, an enquiry was initiated as early as on 10.08.1987, the passing of an order of punishment was kept pending for about five years and finally a punishment was imposed on 21.01.1993. Having regard to the ratio decidendi of the Courts in the matter, where no reasonable explanation is offered, the Hon'ble Division Bench, at paragraph 13 observed as follows:
"13. Further, there was inordinate delay in passing the order of punishment. Though the enquiry was initiated as early as on 10.8.1987, the passing of the order of punishment was kept pending for about five years and finally the punishment was imposed on 21.1.1993. There is no explanation for such an inordinate delay in passing the final order. Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee or the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Further when the petitioner had pleaded that there was official prejudice and enmity between him and the third respondent in the matter of use and maintenance of the official vehicle, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case in proper perspective while dismissing the Original Applications. The Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when there was hardly fifteen days left for his retirement. More over, when his date of retirement is on 11.3.1987 and the order of suspension was passed on 25.3.1987 by invoking G.O. No. 173. Therefore, when once the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 11.3.1987, the placing the petitioner under suspension after his date of superannuation is without authority and that when the relationship of master-servant ceased to exist, no Disciplinary Proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside."
(p) In K.Kumaran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Chennai and another reported in 2007(3) CTC 763, the alleged lapses relate to the period 1987-1988. A charge memo was issued on 08.05.2004, after nearly 16 years. By observing that delay causes prejudice to the charged officer, unless it can be shown that he was to be blamed for the delay or when there was proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, this Court quashed the charges, issued belatedly.
(q) In Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the correctness of a judgment made in a second appeal, dismissing the plea that there was no substantial question of law in interfering with the judgment and decree made by the District Court, which reversed a decree passed in a suit for declaration, declaring a show cause notice issued after a delay of 7 years after concluding the departmental enquiry, as illegal. There was also a delay of 9 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings. In the above reported case, for an allegation of the year 1974, a charge memo was issued in 1983, after 9 years. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 01.01.1985. After a delay of nearly 7 years, the department issued a show cause notice with a copy of the report, proposing to impose a penalty. After submission of the explanation, the Government servant preferred a suit to declare a show cause notice proposing to impose a punishment as invalid. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action of the employer imposing punishment as illegal. The State preferred an appeal to the District Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the Government servant filed a second appeal to the High Court. The decision made by the District Court was confirmed. Testing the correctness of the judgment and decree and following the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.N.Radhakrishnan reported in AIR 1998 SCC 1833 : 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevan V.Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 9 has held as follows:
"We have extracted the charges against the appellant. These charges did not require any detailed investigation. In view of the unexplained delay of nine years the Trial Court was justified in holding that the entire enquiry was vitiated and in declaring that the order of punishment to be null and void. The Appellate Court did not have any justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter as the Appeal involved a substantial question of law, i.e whether issue of charge sheet after nine years when there are no special circumstance to explain the delay vitiated the enquiry. As the matter is old and as we have already found that the delay vitiated the enquiry, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter. We propose to dispose of the Appeal on merits".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment and decree of the High Court and the first appellate Court and consequently, restored the judgment of the decree of the trial Court, setting aside the penalty.
(r) In S.Rathinavelu Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and another reported in 2009(2) CTC 513, for certain incidents alleged to have occurred in 1988-1989, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, after 10 years. After considering a catena of decisions, this Court set aside the punishment on the ground of inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings.
(s) In Kootha Pillai Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Chennai and others reported in 2009(1) MLJ 761, this Court has quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay.
(t) Following the ratio decidendi in N.Radhakrishnan's case cited supra, a recent judgment reported in S.Sekar Vs. Commissioner of Social Welfare, Ezhilagam, Chennai reported in 2010 (1) MLJ 708, a learned Judge at paragraph 11 has observed as follows:
"11.Also, it is a settled proposition that while considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules; but then, delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officers unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations".
In the above reported case, there was a delay of 12 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and that there was no explanation for such delay.
10.As rightly pointed out by Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the respondents, there is no reasonable explanation in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. An enquiry officer is appointed to assist the appointing/disciplinary authority, to collect evidence, assess the evidence and to record a finding, which is not final. It is for the disciplinary/appointing authority, to make an assessment of the enquiry report, as to whether the enquiry officer, has properly analysed the evidence, afforded a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent, procedure has been duly followed, and whether the enquiry officer has arrived at a finding, on the principles of preponderance of probability. Nature of work of the enquiry officer, is only to assist the disciplinary authority, and his finding is not final. Thus, when the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, who had framed charges, against each of the respondents/writ petitioners, considered entire materials on record, including the evidence, findings recorded by the enquiry officer, further/additional representations of the respondents, he has found that there were no substantial materials, to arrive at the conclusion of guilt.
11.As the analysis of the evidence by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, disciplinary authority, is almost the same in all the three writ appeals, we deem it fit to extract the relevant portion, from one of the impugned Government Orders.
?4.Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; jdJ $Ljy; tpsf;fj;jpy; njhptpj;j fhuzq;fspd; kPJ NkNy Ie;jhtjhfg; gbf;fg;gl;l fbjj;jpy; Ntshz;ik Mizaphplk; fUj;J Nfl;fg;gl;lJ. NkNy Mwhtjhfg; gbf;fg;gl;l fbj;jpy;y Ntshz;ik Mizah;> gpioahsh; 4.12.85 gpw;gfy; njd;id ehw;Wg;gz;iz Ntshz;ik mYtyh; nghWg;gpypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;L> jpU.g;gp.godpr;rhkp> Ntshz;ik mYtyh; 4.12.85-y; nghWg;Ngw;Ws;shh; vd;Wk; gpioahsh; 4.12.85-y; nghWg;Gfis xg;gilf;Fk; NghJ Nehaw;w g+r;rp jhf;Fjy; ,y;yhj epiyapy; fd;Wfs;> new;Wfs; xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tptuk; md;dhhpd; tps;f;f fbjk; %yk; njhpa tUfpwJ vd;Wk; NkYk; 12.12.86 kw;Wk; 9.1.86 Njjpfspy; Ma;T nra;j Ntshz;ik Jiz ,af;Feh; (vtp) kJiu mth;fs; njd;dq;fd;Wfs; FUj;jOjy; Nehapdhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l mwpFwpfs; njhpag;gLfpwJ vd;Nwh new;Wfs; rhpahd ,ilntspapy; elg;gltpy;iy vd;Nwh Fw;wk;rhl;b Ma;twpf;ifapy; jpUr;rp Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh;(njd;id) mth;fs; [Piy 4 kw;Wk; 5k; Njjp 1986 k; Mz;L ghh;itapl;L ehw;wq;fhy; kpfTk; Nkhrkhd epiyapy; FUj;jOjy; Neha; fz;Ls;sjhfTk; 14.2.86 Kjy; Nehapd; Nrjk; eh;rhp Ntshz;ik mYtyuhy; fz;lwpg;gl;L jpdrhp ehl;Fwpg;gpy; vOg;gl;Ls;sjhfTk; njhptpj;Js;shh;. Mdhy; gpioahsh; jhd; gzpahw;wpa a+dpl;-1y; 14.2.86 jpdrhp gjpTj;jhspy; Neha; rk;ge;jkhd Fwpg;NgJk; gz;iz nghWg;G mYtyuhy; vOjg;gl;tpy;iy vd;Wk;> jpUr;rp Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh; gz;iz Ma;tpl;L toq;fpa Fwpg;gpy; a+dpl;-3 gjpTj;jhspy; 14.2.86 Kjy; Neha; fz;Ls;sij Fwpg;G vOjg;gl;bUg;gjhf njhptpj;Js;sij a+dpl;- 1y; jpdrhp gjpT jhspy; Neha; rk;ge;jkhf Fwpg;G vOjg;gl;bUf;Fk; vd jtWjyhff; fUjp A+dpl;-1 jpdrhp gjptj;jhis Ma;gplhky; 14.2.86 Kjy; Neha; jhf;fg;gl;lJ fz;lwpag;gl;ljhf tprhuiz mYtyh; njhptpj;Js;shh; vd;Wk; NkYk; gpioahsh; gzpahw;wpa a+dpl;-1-y; ,e;Neha; gutpaJ vd;gjw;F tprhuiz mYtyh; mwpf;ifapy; njspthff; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;Wk; NkYk; gpioahsh; jpU.K.rk;gj;> Ntshz;ik mYtyh; khw;wyhfp nrd;w 7 khjq;fs; fopj;J> Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh; jpUr;rp mth;fshy; Ma;T nra;ag;gl;L Neha; Nrjk; fz;lwpag;gl;ljw;F gpioahsh; ve;j tifapy; nghWg;ghfpwhh; vd tprhuiz mYtyh; njhptpf;ftpy;iy NkYk; gpioahsh; gzpapypUe;j fhyfl;lj;jpy; ,e;Neha; fhzg;gl;ljw;fhd njspthd fhuzq;fs; tprhuiz mYtyh; njhptpf;fhjjhYk; NkYk; Ntshz;ik cjtp ,af;Feh;(vtp) Njdp> mth;fs; chpa fhyj;jpy; njd;id ehw;Wfis nghJ tpepNahfk; nra;a eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;stpy;iy vd;w tYthd fhuzj;ij tprhuiz mYtyh; njhptpf;fhjjhYk; ,og;gpw;F gpioahsh;jhd; nghWg;G vd rhpahd njhopy; El;g hPjpahd fhuzq;fs; njhptpf;fhjjhYk; tprhuiz mYtyhpd; fz;Lgpbg;gpd; kPjhd gpioahshpd; $Ljy; tpsf;fk; Vw;Gilajhf cs;sjhf Ntshz;ik Mizah; njhptpj;Js;shh;.?
Translated version of the above extracted portion by the Registry ,in English, is as under:-
?Opinion was sought for from the Agricultural Commissioner vide the letter under Reference 5 read above on the reasons stated by the delinquent officer in his additional explanation. In the letter sixth read above, the Agricultural Commissioner has stated that the delinquent was relieved from the post of Agricultural Officer - Coconut Seedling Farm on 4.12.85 p.m. and Mr.P.Palanichamy, Agricultural Officer took charge on 04.12.1985; that it is evident from the explanation letter given by him that, when the delinquent was handing over charge sapplings and seedlings were handed over without disease and without insect-affected condition; further, the The Deputy Director of Agriculture (OS) Madurai, who conducted inspection on 12.12.1986 and 9.1.1986, did not raise any allegation in his inspection report that either the coconut sapplings were not seen to have been suffering from tender leaf rottening disease or that the sapplings were not planted with proper intervals; that further the enquiry officer, in his report, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Coconut), Trichy, on his inspection on July 4th and 5th, 1986, had stated that the sapplings were in a very bad condition, affected by tender leaf rottening disease; the damage on account of the disease was ascertained by the Nursery Agricultural Officer with effect from 14.2.1986 and the same has been written in the diary. But the Agricultural Officer has stated that nothing has been pointed out as to the disease by the Farm-in- charge Officer in the daily record sheet of 14.2.1986 with regard to Unit 1 in which the delinquent had served; that the enquiry officer has stated that it has been found out that with effect from 14.2.1986 it got affected by the disease while inspecting the daily record sheet of Unit 1, erroneously assuming that in the daily record sheet of Unit 1, the details with regard to the disease would have been written, misunderstanding the inspection report submitted by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Trichy, who inspected the farm, stating that in the record sheet of Unit 3, a note has been written that with effect from 14.2.1986, it got affected by the disease; that it has not been clearly mentioned in the report of the enquiry officer that the disease got spread in Unit 1 where the delinquent served; that further the enquiry officer did not inform as regards, in what way the delinquent could be held responsible for the damage caused by the disease, as has been found out on an inspection made by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Trichy, seven months after the delinquent Mr.Sampath, Agricultural Officer has been transferred; that further, as the enquiry officer has not clearly stated the reasons to show that this disease was found during the period when the delinquent was on duty; that further, as the enquiry officer has not stated the strong reason that the Assistant Agricultural Director (OS), Theni, did not take action to make public distribution of the coconut sapplings at the appropriate time and had not stated proper reasons in a professional manner to show that the delinquent was responsible for the loss, the Agricultural Commissioner has stated that the additional explanation offered by the delinquent on the findings of the enquiry officer is found acceptable.?
12.Reading of the impugned orders also shows that the Government have thought it fit to impose the abovesaid punishments and vide Government Letter No.23541/ntep5(1)/02-25, dated 25.08.2008, the Government has sought for opinion, under Regulation 18(1)(b)(ii) of the TNPSC Regulations. TNPSC, after considering the entire materials, including the report of the enquiry officer, has recorded and observed as hereunder.
?6.jkpo;ehL muRg; gzpahsh; Njh;thizak; NkNy vl;ltjhfg; gbf;fg;gl;l fbjj;jpy; jpU.K.rk;gj;> Ntshz;ik mYtyh; mth;fs; muR njd;id ehw;Wg;gz;iz> itif mizapy; Ntshz;ik mYtyuhf 24.06.83 Kjy; 4.12.85 gpw;gfy; tiu gzpahw;wpAs;shh;. ,th; a+dpl; 1y; gzpGhpe;jjhf ,tuJ tpsf;ff; fbjq;fs; %yk; njhpatUfpwJ. ,th; 4.12.85 gpw;gfy; njd;id ehw;Wg;gz;iz Ntshz;ik nghWg;gpypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. ,th; njd;id ehw;Wg;gz;izapy; gzpapy; ,Ue;jNghJ 7.9.84 Kjy; 27.8.85 tiu 2 05 000 new;Wfs; nfhs;Kjy; nra;Js;shh;. 18.1.85 Kjy; 4.12.85 tiu 1 39 940 gjg;gLj;jg;gl;l new;Wf;fs; ghj;jpapy; elg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mth; jdJ nghWg;Gfis jpU.g;gp.godprhkp Ntshz;ik mYtyh; mth;fsplk; xg;gilj;jNghJ ehw;Wfspd; taJ 1 ehs; Kjy; 10 khjkhf ,Ue;Js;sJ. NkYk; 64 960 new;Wfs; ghJfhg;G Fopapy; ,Ue;Js;sJ. ,th; nghWg;Gfis 4.12.85 md;W xg;gilf;Fk;NghJ Nehaw;w g+r;rp jhf;Fjy; ,y;yhj epiyapy; fd;Wfs; new;Wffs; xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tptuq;fs; ,tuJ tpsf;ff; fbjq;fs; %yk; njhpatUfpwJ. NkYk; 12.12.86 kw;Wk; 9.1.86 Njjpfspy Ma;T nra;j Ntshz;ik Jiz ,af;Feh;(vz;iztpj;J) kJiu mth;fs; njd;dq;fd;Wfs; FUj;jOfy; Nehapdhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l mwpFwpfs; njd;gLfpwJ vd;Nwh new;Wf;fs; rhpahd ,ilntspapy; elg;gltpy;iy vd;Nwh Fw;wk;rhl;b Ma;T mwpf;ifapy; njhpag;gLj;jtpy;iy.
NkYk; FUj;jOfy; Neha; jhd; gzpahw;wpa fhyj;jpy; a+dpl; 1y; ,y;iy vd njhptpj;Js;shh;. Jhd; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;ll gy ehl;fs; fopj;J mjhtJ 7 khjq;fs; fopj;J Vw;gl;l Neha;f;F ve;j tpjj;jpYk; jhd; nghWg;gpy;iy vd;Wk; njhptpj;jpUf;fpwhh;.
tprhuiz mYtyh; jdJ tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy; Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh;(njd;id) jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp mth;fs; njd;id ehw;wq;fy; gz;izia 4 kw;Wk; 5k; Njjp [Piy 86k; Mz;L ghh;itapl;L ehw;wq;fhy; kpfTk; Nkhrkhd epiyapy; FUj;jOfy; Neha; fz;Ls;sjhfTk; 14.2.86 Kjy; Nehapd; Nrjk; eh;rhp Ntshz;ik mYtyuhy; fz;lwpag;gl;L jpdrhp ehl;Fwpg;gpy; vOjg;gl;Ls;sjhfTk; Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh;(njd;id) jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp mth;fspd; fbj vz; 1973/86 ehs; 23.7.86y; njhptpj;Js;shh; vd;W njhptpf;fpwhh;. Mdhy; Fw;w mYtyh; jhd; gzpahw;wpa ehw;Wg;gz;iz a+dpl; 1y; 14.2.86 jpdrhp gjpT jhspy; Neha; rk;ge;jkhf Fwpg;G VJk; md;iwa gz;iz nghWg;G mYtyuhy; vOj;g;gltpy;iy jpUr;rp Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh;(njd;id) 4.7.86 md;W Nkwgb gz;izapid Ma;tpl;L toq;fpa Ma;Tf;Fwpg;gpy; a+dpl; 3 jpdrhp gjpTj;jhspy; 14.2.86 Kjy; Neha; fz;Ls;sjhff; Fwpg;G vOjg;gl;bUg;gjhfj; njhptpj;jij a+dpl; 1 jpdrhp gjpT jhspy; Neha; rk;ge;jkhf Fwpg;G vOjg;gl;bUf;Fk; vd;W jtwhff; fUjp a+dpl; 1y; 14.2.86 jpdrhp gjpT jhis Ma;tplhky; 14.2.86 Kjy; Neha; jhf;fg;gl;lJ fz;lwpag;gl;Ls;sJ vd tprhuiz mYtyh; njhptpj;Js;shh;.
,e;epfo;tpy; Fw;w mytyh; gzpapypUe;J fhyj;jpy; ,e;Neha; njd;gltpy;iy vd;gJ njspthfpwJ. NkYk; 14.2.86 y; FUj;jOfy; Neha; fz;lgpbj;Js;sJ eh;rhp mYtyuhy; fz;lag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; jpdrhp gjpNtl;by; vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd njhptpf;fpwhNu jtpu Fw;w mYtyh; gzpahw;wpa a+dpl; 1y; fhzg;gLfpwJ vd;W Fwpg;ghfj; njhptpf;ftpy;iy.; vdNt a+dpl; 1y; mjhtJ Fw;w mYtyh; gzpahw;wpa a+dpl;by; ,e;Neha; gutpaJ vd;gJ tprhuiz mYtyh; mwpf;ifapy; njspthf ,y;yhjjhy; gpioahshpd; tpsf;fk; Vw;Gs;sjhf cs;sJ.
NkYk; Ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh;(njd;id) jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp mth;fshy; Fw;w mYtyh; mth;fs; khw;wyhfp nrd;W 7 khjq;fs; fopj;J Ma;T nra;a;g;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;j Ma;tpy; fz;Lgpbf;fg;gl;l Neha; Nrjj;jpw;F ve;nje;j tifapy; Fw;w mYtyh; nghWg;ghfpwhh; vd;gJ Fwpj;J jdJ fz;lgpbg;gpy; tprhuiz mYtyh; VJk; njhptpf;ftpy;iy.
NkYk; Fw;w mYtyh; 4.12.85 md;W tpLtpf;fg;gl;lgpd; 12.12.85 kw;Wk; 9.1.86 Mfpa ehl;fspy; ,g;gz;izia> Ntshz;ik Jiz ,af;Feh;(vtp) kJiu mth;fs; Ma;T nra;Ak;NghJ njd;dq;fd;Wfs; FUj;jOfy; Nehahy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l mwpFwpfs; njd;gLfpwJ vd;Nwh> new;Wf;fs; rhpahd ,ilntspapy; elg;gltpy;iy vd;Nwh jdJ Ma;T mwpf;ifapy; njhptf;ftpy;iy. NkYk; new;Wf;fs; elT kw;Wk; guhkhpg;G Kiwapy; cs;s FiwghLfis njhopy; El;g hPjpahf tprhuiz mYtyh; Mjhuj;Jld; ep&gpf;ftpy;iy. vdNt Fw;w mYtyh; gzpahw;wpa fhyj;jpy; ,e;Neha; fhzg;gl;lJ vd;gjw;F rhpahd fhuzq;fs; tprhuiz mYtyhpd; fz;lwpjyp;y; njspthff; $wg;gltpy;iy.
vdNt Fw;w mYtyh; jpU.K.rk;gj;> Ntshz;ik mYtyh; jhd; gzpahw;wpa fhyj;jpy; ,e;Neha; gz;izapy; fz;lwpag;gltpy;iy vd;gjhYk; Fw;w mYtyh; gzpapypUe;j fhyfl;lq;fspy; ,e;Neha; fz;lwpag;gl;ljw;fhd njspthd fhuzq;fs; tprhuiz mYtyhpd; fz;lwpjy; mwpf;ifapy; njhptpf;fhjjhYk; Ntshz;ik cjtp ,af;Feh;(vtp) Njdp mth;fs; chpa fhyj;jpy; njd;id ehw;Wf;fisg; nghJ tpepNahfk; nra;aj; jFe;j jUzj;jpy; eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;stpy;iy vd;w tYthd fhuzk; ,Ug;gij tprhuiz mYtyh; njhptpf;fhjjhYk; (18 Kjy; 25 khj ehw;Wf;fs; ,Ug;gpy; ,Ue;Js;sJ) ,e;j ,og;gpw;F Fw;w mYtyh;jhd; nghWg;G vd;W njhop;y; El;g hPjpahf nghWg;G eph;zak; nra;tjw;F tYthd Mjhuq;fs; ,e;j tprhuizapy; Kd; itf;fhjjhYk;.
Fw;w mYtyh; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;LfspypUe;J Fw;w mYtyh; jpU.K.rk;gj; Ntshz;ik mYtyh; mth;fis tpLtpj;Jtplyhk; vd;Wk; NkYk; tptrhag; gz;izapy; gy yl;rq;fs; nfhLj;J nfhs;Kjy; nra;j elT nra;fpd;w gl;rj;jpy; xU Ntshz;ik mYtyiu khWjy; nra;fpd;wnghOJ nfhs;Kjy; nra;ag;gl;l nghUl;fs; ve;epiyapy; cs;sJ vd Muha;e;J nray;gl;L gpd;dh; mth;fis gzpapypUe;J NtW ,lj;jpw;F khWjy; nra;J gzpapypUe;j tpLtpf;fg;gl;Ntz;Lk;. Mdhy; mth;fis gzpapypUe;J tpLtpj;J 7 my;yJ 8 khjq;fs; fopj;J njd;dq;fd;WfSf;F FUj;jOfy; Neha; fz;Ls;sJ vd;W mth; kPJ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ. VdNt gpioahsh; kPJ vw;gLj;jpa Fw;wr;rhl;bypUe;J tpLtpj;Jtplyhk; vd Njh;thizak; KbT nra;J mt;thNw muRf;F jdJ MNyhrizia toq;Ftjhfj; njhptpj;Js;sJ.?
Translated version of the above extracted portion by the Registry in English, is as under:-
?The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in the letter under reference 8 read above, had stated that Mr.M.Sampath, Agricultural Officer, was working in the coconut sappling farm, Vaigai Dam Agricultural Officer from 24.06.1983 to 04.12.1985 AN. It is seen from his explanation letters that he had worked in Unit 1.He has been relieved from duty in the coconut sappling farm on the afternoon of 4.12.1985. When he was working in the coconut sappling farm, he had purchased 2,05,000 sapplings from 7.9.1984 to 27.8.1985. From 18.1.1985 till 4.12.1985, 1,39,940 sapplings have been processed and partly planted in the garden plot. When he had handed over charge to Mr.P.Palanichamy, Agricultural Officer, the age of the sapplings were ranging from 1 day to 10 months. Further, 64,690 saplings were three in protective pit. When he had handed over charge on 4.12.1985, details are evident from his explanation letters that plants and sapplings have been handed over in a non-diseased condition/in a condition not affected by insects . Further, the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Madurai who had inspected the farm on 12.12.1985 and 9.1.1986, had not either stated in his inspection report that there was an indication showing that the coconut sapplings were affected by tender leaves rottening disease or had stated that the sapplings were not planted leaving proper space.
He has further stated that during the period when he was on duty, tender leaves rottening disease was not found in Unit 1. he has also stated that he is not in any way responsible for the disease that had affected seven months after he had been relieved from his duty.
The enquiry officer, in his enquiry report had stated that the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Coconut), Trichy, on his inspection on July 4th and 5th, 1986, had stated that the sapplings were in a very bad condition, affected by tender leaf rottening disease; the damage on account of the disease was ascertained by the Nursery Agricultural Officer with effect from 14.2.1986 and the same has been written in the diary ahd that the same has been mentioned in the letter of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Coconut), Tiruchirappalli in his Letter No.1973/86 dated 23.07.1986. But the delinquent Officer has stated that nothing has been pointed out as to the disease by the then Farm-in-charge Officer in the daily record sheet of 14.2.1986 with regard to Unit 1 in which the delinquent had served. that the enquiry officer has stated that it has been found out that with effect from 14.2.1986 it got affected by the disease while inspecting the daily record sheet of Unit 1, erroneously assuming that in the daily record sheet of Unit 1, the details with regard to the disease would have been written, misunderstanding the inspection report submitted by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Trichy, who inspected the farm, stating that in the record sheet of Unit 3, a note has been written that with effect from 14.2.1986, it got affected by the disease.
It is clear that in this case, this disease was not found during the period when the delinquent officer was on duty. Further, he only states that on 14.2.1986, that the tender leaves rottening disease was found out by the Nursery Officer and was written in the daily register and it does not specifically state that it has been found out in Unit 1 where the delinquent officer had served. Hence, as it has not been clearly stated in the report of the enquiry officer that this disease got spread in Unit 1 i.e., in the Unit where the delinquent officer served, the explanation offered by the delinquent officer is acceptable.
Further, the inspection has been done by the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Coconut), Tiruchirapalli, seven months after the delinquent officer got transferred. The enquiry officer has not stated anything in his findings as to in what are all the ways the delinquent officer is held responsible for the damage caused on account of the disease as found out in this inspection.
Further, after the delinquent officer was relieved on 4.12.1985, on the Deputy Director of Agriculture (OS), Madurai, inspecting this farm on 12.12.1985 and 9.1.1986, he had not either stated in his inspection report that there was an indication showing that the coconut sapplings were affected by tender leaves rottening disease or had stated that the sapplings were not planted, leaving proper space. Further, the enquiry officer has not proved the deficiency in the plantation of the sapplings as well as on the method of maintenance in a professional manner. Hence, correct reasonings have not been stated in the findings of the enquiry officer to show that this disease was found at the time when the delinquent officer was on duty.
Hence, as this disease has not been found out in this farm during the period when the delinquent officer Mr.M.Sampath, Agricultural Officer, was on duty; as the enquiry officer has not stated clear reasoning in his inspection report to the effect that this disease was found out during the period when the delinquent officer was on duty; as the enquiry officer has not stated as to the existence of the strong reasoning to the effect that the Assistant Agricultural Officer (OS) did not take steps to effect public distribution of the coconut sapplings at the appropriate point of time (18 to 25 months old sapplings were on stock) and that he had not placed any strong reasoning in a professional manner in this enquiry to conclude that the delinquent officer was responsible for this loss, the delinquent officer Mr.M.Sampath, Agricultural Officer, can be relieved of the charges levelled against the delinquent officer. Further, having spent several lakhs of rupees for purchasing and planting, while transferring an Agricultural Officer, the condition of the purchased goods should be monitored and only thereafter, they should be relieved on effecting transfer. But, seven or eight months after relieving them, allegation has been made, stating that coconut sapplings have been affected by tender leaves rottening disease. Hence, the Commission has decided that the delinquent can be relieved of the charges framed against him and has stated that it would make its recommendation to the Government accordingly.?
13.When the report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai and the opinion of TNPSC, are to the effect that there were no substantial materials, to arrive at the conclusion that the charges as proved, the Government, without assigning any valid reasons, by disagreeing with the above report and recommendation, have passed the punishment orders. The manner, in which, the Government have passed the impugned punishment orders, is extracted hereunder:-
?7.jkpo;ehL muRg; gzpahsh; Njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;jpid muR Ma;T nra;Ak;NghJ jkpo;ehL Njh;thizak; xOq;F eltbf;iffspy; cs;s Fiwghl;il Rl;bf;fhl;bdhy; tO cs;s ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;J kPz;Lk; tprhuiz nra;ag;glyhk;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F Mjhuk; ,y;iy vd tprhuiz mYtyh; ve;j ,lj;jpYk; nrhy;yhj epiyapy; Njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;J Vw;Gilajy;y vd;Wk; ,e;epfotpy; Njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;Jf;F muR khWgl;L tprhuiz mYtyhpd; mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapy; jpU.K.rk;gj;> Ntshz;ik mYtyhpd; Cjpa cah;tpid 18 khjq;fSf;F jpuz;l gadpd;wp epWj;jp itf;fTk; murpw;F Vw;gl;l ,og;Gj; njhifahd &.1 19 165- 60 khjq;fSf;F(59 khjq;fSf;F &.2000 tPjKk;(60-tJ) filrp khjj;jpy; &.1165 MfTk; gpbj;jk; nra;a cj;Njrpf;fg;gl;l jz;lidia cWjpg;gLj;jp muR KbT nra;jJ.? Translated version of the above extracted portion by the Registry in English, is as under:-
?On examining the view of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, if the Tamilnadu Commission points out deficiency in the disciplinary proceedings, enquiry can again be continued from the place where the defect lies. The enquiry officer having not stated anywhere that there was no proof for the charges levelled, the Government decided that the decision of the Commission is not acceptable and that in this case, differing from the view of the commission, on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the Government have decided to confirm the proposal of stoppage of increment in respect of Mr.Sampath Agricultural Officer, for a period of 18 months without cumulative effect and to recover the loss incurred to the Government of a sum of Rs.1,19,165/- for a period of 60 months (Rs.2,000/- each for a period of 59 months and in the (60th) last month, a sum of Rs.1,165/-.)?
14.When there is a disagreement, it is the mandate of law that the authority has to assess the evidence in entirety, give reasons as to why the report of the disciplinary authority is not agreeable. The reasons assigned should reflect application of mind. On this aspect, we deem it fit to consider few decisions on the abovesaid aspect.
(i) In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree reported in 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), it was observed:
"Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at."
(ii) In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab reported in (1979) 2 SCC 368, the Supreme held as follows:
Reasons' are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions."
(iii) In Mc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in (2006) SLT 345 = 2006 AIR SCW 3276, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 57, held that reason is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or action.
(iv) In S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, it has been held as follows:-
?The requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy.
The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.
Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record' the reasons for its decision.''
(v) In R.Pari Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai and another, reported in 2006(4) CTC 609, where the Full Bench of this Court at para 42 held as follows;
"42. However, it is necessary to enter a small caveat. The observation made by the Division Bench or the single Judge regarding requirement to indicate reason while passing the order has to be understood in the context of non-application of mind. Even though in a given case the order which is communicated to the land owner does not indicate any reason why the objection has been rejected, if the application of mind is reflected in the file even by way of notings and endorsements, the ultimate decision to acquire the land cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the order which is communicated to the land owner/objector does not contain any detailed reasons. The requirement is that the materials on record, that is to say the relevant file, should indicate application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and not passing of a formal reasoned order as is required in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The function obviously being administrative in nature, it is futile to expect furnishing of detailed reasons in the order which is communicated to the person. It is necessary to enter such caveat lest it may be construed that in every case, where the order of rejection communicated to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the proceeding stands vitiated. Ultimately the Court is required to find out in each case whether there has been application of mind. Therefore, the brief reasons, which are contemplated, can be given either in the file in the shape of notings, endorsements, etc. or even can be reflected in the order. But, mere non-reflection of reasons in the order communicated or in the notice published in the Gazette, would not be sufficient to hold that there has been non-application of mind and the question as to whether there has been application of mind or non-application is required to be considered on the basis of the return filed and the relevant file to be produced before the Court."
(vi) In M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 281, the Supreme Court held that the appellate order must be a speaking order and well reasoned, otherwise, it is lifeless.
(vii) In East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4210, the Supreme Court held that, "Reasons must be stated in order or official note contemporaneously maintained."
15.The only reason assigned by the Government in the impugned orders is that had the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission indicated the stage, at which, there was any defect, re-enquiry can be ordered, and that the enquiry officer has not stated that there was no proof, for the charge and in the abovesaid circumstances, the Government have thought it fit to differ with the views of TNPSC.
16.Contentions of the learned Special Government Pleader on the general proposition of law that the appellate/reviewing authority can differ from the disciplinary authority, cannot be disputed, but it is equally relevant and appropriate, to consider that as to how and what circumstances, the said authority has applied the said proposition, to the facts of this case and it is the duty of the Court to advert to the same. Going through the material on record, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be said to be a speaking order, with due application of mind, for the reason that evidence aspect has not been discussed. The reason why the Government had disagreed with the views of the disciplinary authority, are not properly reflected.
17.Inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, conclusion, and orders passed thereon, has not been satisfactorily and reasonably explained, except bifurcation of the departments. Explanation is not satisfactory. As rightly contended by Mr.S.Viswalingam, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, non consideration of the petitioners, for promotion to higher posts, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, for a long period of 27 years itself, is a penalty, and hardship caused to them. Indirectly, the Government have inflicted a punishment of postponement of the promotion of the writ petitioners.
18.Thus, on the facts of this case, we only wish to observe that might should not think that it is always right. The authority who had imposed the punishment ought to have considered that if he was in the same situation, of a ?Damocles Sword?, hanging over his head, for twenty seven years, what would have been his case, to be put forth?
19.As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the punishment order has to reflect the link between the materials, on the basis of which, conclusions were arrived at.
20.For the reasons stated supra, common order of the learned single Judge made in W.P(MD)Nos.5961 to 5963 of 2011 dated 22.04.2014, quashing G.O(3-D)Nos.30, 31 and 32, Agriculture Department, dated 14.02.2011, is sustained and Writ Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the relief ordered in the writ petitions is sustained. No costs. M.P(MD)Nos.2, 2, 2, 3 and 3 of 2015 are closed.
To
1)The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2)The Commissioner of Agriculture,