Madras High Court
Indra Devi vs The Commissioner on 6 June, 2014
WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 14.08.2020
DELIVERED ON : 10.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 and
M.P(MD).No.2 of 2014
Indra Devi : Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai. : Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
proceedings of the respondent made in Ma.Ni.2/27009/2013, dated
06.06.2014 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr. A. Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah
Standing Counsel
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order of the respondent made in Ma.Ni.2/27009/2013, dated 06.06.2014.
2. The factual service matrix of the petitioner that are required for determination of this Writ Petition are as under:
(a) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Draftsman on 12.10.1995 in Madurai Corporation in the Time Scale of Pay Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660. Then, she was promoted as Technical Assistant in the Time Scale of Pay of Rs.4,500/- 125 – 7000 on 01.12.2006. At the time of appointment she was having Diploma in Civil Engineering. She has done her Bachelor Degree during her service period and passed in the year 2008. The Madurai Corporation allowed the petitioner to write examination. After her graduation, the Madurai Corporation once again promoted the petitioner as Junior Engineer on 29.06.2011. Thereafter, she was transferred to Ward 35, but, in the said Ward she did not work properly.
2/11
http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014
(b) While the petitioner was working in the Ward 35 as a Junior Engineer, she is alleged to have not worked properly. Hence, the people of Ward 35 were highly suffered to get drinking water. So they blocked the road with their pots. In order to escape from the said problem, she availed medical leave from 16.08.2013 to 15.09.2013 and she extended her medical leave from 16.10.2013 to 13.11.2013. The counsellor who is the elected representative of the public in Ward 35 gave complaint against the petitioner alleging that she had not sincerely worked in Madurai Corporation.
(c) Despite the instruction given on maintenance of Under Ground Drainage, the petitioner had not taken any initiative for free flow of Under Ground Sewage and she had failed to do the operation maintenance of Under Ground Sewage System. This caused the public inconvenient and the public suffered a lot. Due to her disobedience and negligence of duties the respondent issued a charge memo for her dereliction of her duties. An Enquiry Officer was appointed in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner to enquire the charges against the petitioner. The 3/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 petitioner gave an explanation that she had completed 17 works and the Enquiry Officer has also accepted her explanation. To confirm whether the works were completed within the stipulated period a note was sent to the City Engineer (in charge) on 13.12.2013. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD).No. 5289 of 2014. This Court by an order dated 26.03.2014 directed the respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. As per the order of this Court, the respondent completed the disciplinary proceedings and passed final orders in accordance with law on the basis of the report of Enquiry Officer and the report of the City Engineer. It was proved that the petitioner does not establish her duties for the welfare of the public. Negligence of duties and disobedience were proved. Hence, she was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Hence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appeal Committee of Madurai Corporation and it was pending. While it is pending, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would 4/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 contend that the Enquiry Officer's report holding that the charges are not framed. Subsequently, the report submitted by the Town Engineer was not furnished to the petitioner and relying upon the Engineer's report, the disciplinary authority has framed the charges. As per the decision of this Court reported in 2009(3) CTC 388 (V. Arulkumar Vs. Housing Development and Corporation Ltd., and others) wherein it is held that when the disciplinary authority is taking a different view other than the Enquiry Officer's view as contended in the Enquiry Officer's report they must give a reasons for the same. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority has passed a non speaking order and the charge itself is made merely because Ward member has stopped some of the substandard materials resulted in delay in completion of the various projects in the said said ward.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that based upon the Town Engineer's report, the disciplinary authority has passed an order and the appeal is also dismissed and he made submissions in support of the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer has given a report stating that all the charges are not proved without getting a detailed report from the City Engineer. Subsequently, the report of the City Engineer was called for by the disciplinary authority, which clearly demonstrates that the charges are proved and there is negligence on the part of the petitioner.
7. As stated supra, which is specifically mentioned that when the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, they must give an opportunity to the delinquent before referring the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the same is mandatory.
8. The report given by the Town Engineer has been served upon the petitioner 27.05.2014, wherein, the Tabular Column contains the details of Enquiry Officer and the opinion of the City Engineer. Hence, I find that the copies of the report furnished by the City Engineer was 6/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 furnished to the petitioner. Insofar as the report of the City Engineer being furnished and an opportunity of being heard was given, I find that the procedure that has to be followed as indicated in the decision of the of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
9. When the factual finding is to the effect that the petitioner has neglected almost all civil works awarded in Ward 35 of the Madurai Corporation, they are relying to maintenance of under ground drainage, renovation of toilet at various places, drinking water facilities etc., She has not called for tender for the toilets to facilitate the residence in Ward 35. In spite of the instructions given by the City Engineer to renovate the toilet at Ramarayar Mandapam in North Bank of River Vaigai abutting to the Vaigai North River Bank Road, she has failed to do the same. Even she did not prepare the estimate for the renovation work. Further, she has not implemented any of the Government Scheme in the scheduled time. Therefore, the people, who are living in the said Ward creating the problem.
10. Therefore, the factual finding given by the City Engineer that 7/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 the decision arrived at and the conclusion that the charges proved was accepted by the disciplinary authority. In otherwise, the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the City Engineer, the Enquiry Officer without waiting for the City Engineer's report in a casual manner arrived at a conclusion that the charges are not proved. Since no report is received from the City Engineer, without waiting for the City Engineer's report in a rush and ash manner, the Enquiry Officer has concluded the report. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly called for the report from the City Engineer and based upon the factual decision indicating the non constructions of the sufficient facility to facilitate the drinking water to Ward - 35 and non construction and renovation of toilet in the said Vaigai River Bank and various negligence of the duty has come to the conclusion, besides, the copy of the City Commissioner's report is also served on the petitioner, is not proved.
11. Hence, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the disciplinary authority stating that charges are proved is well considered and well merited, adopted by the disciplinary authority, there is no flaw and the copy is duly served upon the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any 8/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 irregularity in the procedure and no illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or illegality, warranting interference by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.09.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No trp NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 9/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 To The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai – 2.
10/11 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J., trp PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN WP(MD).No.18293 of 2014 10.09.2020 11/11 http://www.judis.nic.in