Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M. Subramanian on 3 July, 2008
Author: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
Bench: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03..07..2008
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr. A.K. Ganguly, Chief Justice
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
Writ Appeal No.587 of 2008
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forests Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Buildings, Chennai-15.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Kallakurichi Division,
Kallakurichi. .. Appellants
versus
M. Subramanian .. Respondent
- - - - -
Prayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 29.8.2007 made in W.P. No.18417 of 2007.
- - - - -
For Appellants : Mr. K. Rajasekar, Govt. Advocate
Mr. S.N. Kirubanandam
For Respondents : Mr. M. Ravi
- - - - -
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice ) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the District Forest Officer impugning an order of the learned Judge of the writ court dated 29.8.2007, by which the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the departmental proceeding initiated by the appellants against the respondent herein. The material facts of the case are that some charges were levelled against the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, in May, 1997 and a charge memo was issued on 20.11.1998. To that, the writ petitioner gave an explanation on 9.2.1999. Thereafter, there was an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer filed his report on 30.5.2000 and the same was communicated to the writ petitioner on 14.8.2000. The writ petitioner then made a representation on 15.9.2000. But since then, the matter was kept pending with the authority and no final order was passed even when the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge of the writ court on 29.8.2007. Therefore, for seven years, no final order was passed in respect of the aforesaid departmental enquiry.
2. It may be noted in this connection that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner just on the eve of his retirement and the writ petitioner was allegedly suspended from service on the date of his superannuation. It appears that before the learned Judge of the writ court, no explanation was offered by the present appellants explaining the delay in the matter of conclusion of the enquiry for a period of seven years. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no counter was filed by the appellants before the learned Judge of the writ court. Therefore, any explanation for such gross delay was not before the learned Judge. On these facts, the learned Judge held and in our view, rightly that a person cannot be kept under perpetual mental agony by the authorities by not passing the final order for a period of seven years. The learned Judge also found that on the date of superannuation, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and the suspension order was also prolonged. As such, the learned Judge was pleased to set aside the suspension order and also the departmental proceeding in view of such inordinate delay. Before us also, no explanation has been offered even in the stay petition, for the delay of seven years in passing the final order. The only so called explanation in paragraph 5 of the stay petition runs as follows :-
"I submit that Thiru. A.S. Singaravelu, Assistant Conservator of Forests, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 30.5.2000. The respondent has received the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report on 15.9.2000 and submitted his final explanation on 15.9.2000, 18.5.2001 and 9.9.2002. The explanations of the respondent along with the parawise remarks was sent to Conservator of Forests, Dharmapuri in Kallakurichi DFO's Ref. No.6502/98/E dated 23.11.2000. As the case is complicated issue, involving valuable Government property worth over Rs.20.77 lakhs, several queries were raised at different levels and were clarified as detailed."
A similar stand has been in Ground No.4 of the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, which is set out below :-
"The learned Judge failed to note that there was no delay on the part of the appellants in conducting the enquiry and the delay has occurred only after the enquiry was completed and after the filing of enquiry report. The learned Judge failed to note that the delay in passing final orders was due to the involvement of huge amount to the tune of Rs.20.77 lakhs which ought to be recovered from the respondent herein. Due to the involvement of huge amount due to the Government, several queries were raised at various levels, which ought to be clarified before passing final orders."
On a combined reading of the averments made in the stay petition and the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, this Court has to reach an inescapable conclusion that there is no reason for the delay of seven years in passing the final order.
3. Apart from that, have looked into the records. The charges framed against the writ petitioner are totally vague. The charges are set out hereunder :-
"Charge : 1 Negligence of duty and not handed over 4703.450 kg of Sandalwood and caused loss to Government.
Charge : 2 Not handed over the Government records and forest produce and caused loss to Government.
Charge : 3 Not handed over the valuable sandalwood by sustaining loss to Government and dereliction of duty.."
Though this question of vagueness in charges was not canvassed before the writ court, but sitting in appeal, we can look into the records since this is a certioari proceeding and we can find out whether the Departmental proceeding was proceeding on a legal and valid basis.
4. Looking into the records, we find that on such vague charges, no departmental proceeding can be held inasmuch as no one can defend such vague charges. This aspect has been considered by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision rendered in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. State of West Bengal reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 752 [see para.4] :
"4. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This Rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.
... The entire proceedings show a complete disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 in so far as it lays down in almost mandatory terms that the charges must be accompanied by a statement of allegations. We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of allegations containing the material facts and particulars not having been supplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing the suit."
Following the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 995, held that where a departmental enquiry entails consequences like loss of job, which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fairplay in action in respect of an order involving adverse and penal consequences of an employee, and the learned Judges held that the charges must be clear and specific; otherwise, it will be difficult for the employee to meet the charges [see para.14] :
"14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused."
The learned Judges also held that mere participation in the enquiry by the employee does not cure the defect of vague charges [see para.15] :
"15. Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent, contended that no allegations had been made before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague. In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry. That does not by itself exonerate the department to bring home the charges."
The aforesaid principles in Surath Chandra Chakravarty's case and Sawai Singh's case have also been followed subsequently by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Transport Corporation, Madras-5 vs. A. Radhakrishnamoorthy reported in (1995) 1 S.C.C. 332 [see para.9] :
"9. Insofar as the vagueness of the charges is concerned we find that it deserves acceptance. It is asserted by Shri Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the respondent that except the memo of charges dated 4-6-1989, no other particulars of charges or supporting particulars were supplied. This assertion could not be denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. A reading of charges would show that they are not specific and clear. They do not point out clearly the precise charge against the respondent, which he was expected to meet. One can understand the charges being accompanied by a statement of particulars or other statement furnishing the particulars of the aforesaid charges but that was not done. The charges are general in nature to the effect that the respondent along with eight other officials indulged in misappropriation by falsification of accounts. What part did the respondent play, which account did he falsify or help falsify, which amount did he individually or together with other named persons misappropriate, are not particularised. The charge is a general one. It is significant to notice that respondent has been objecting to the charges on the ground of vagueness from the earliest stage and yet he was not furnished with the particulars. It is brought to our notice that respondents name was not included in the schedule appended to GOMs 928 dated 25-4-1988 mentioning the names of officials responsible for falsification of accounts and misappropriation and that he is also not made an accused in the criminal proceedings initiated in that behalf."
Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others vs. A. Venkata Raidu reported in (2007) 1 S.C.C. 338 [see para.9] :
"9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO, etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said GOs or directions of the Government were not even placed before the enquiry officer. Hence, Charge 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged."
In view of such overwhelming authority of judicial opinion that no valid enquiry can be held on vague charges, this Court is constrained to hold that the departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent herein was bad from the very inception inasmuch as it purported to proceed on vague charges set out hereinabove.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not think that ends of justice would permit us to interfere with the order which has been passed by the learned Judge of the writ court. The departmental proceedings have been rightly quashed by the learned Judge and we reiterate the same, may be on some other grounds. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.
ab