JUDGMENT
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1 st respondent in his Proceedings No. 4068/EA 3/88 dated February 19, 1991 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings No. 6840/EA 3/92 dated March 29, 1993.
2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner while functioning as Superintendent RMD, Ambattur of SIDCO alleged to have committed certain irregularities. As a result a charge memo dated September 19, 1983 was issued to him calling upon him to explain the various lapses and misconduct. The petitioner furnished his reply on November 24, 1983, which was received by SIDCO on November 29, 1983. Since the relevant papers and file could not be traced. SIDCO requested the petitioner to furnish true copies of the charge memo dated September 19, 1983 and his reply dated November 24, 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner gave copies of the same. On the basis of these copies, SIDCO let
off the petitioner merely with a severe reprimand.
3. However, it is stated by SIDCO that after the petitioner was let off the missing file curiously resurfaced, and upon a perusal of the same, it was discovered that the petitioner has willfully and fraudulently misled SIDCO as to the nature of gravity of charges framed against him and as to his response thereto. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for fraudenlty misleading SIDCO in this regard. SIDCO issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him with regard to his grave misconduct in the matter of fraudulently misleading SIDCO by producing the forged and fabricated documents to escape the gravity of the charges. The petitioner gave his response thereto. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 1st respondent arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the
charges and by his order dated February 19, 1991, the 1st respondent directed that the petitioner’s future increment be withheld for three years with cumulative effect. The 1 st respondent also directed that the earlier enquiry pursuant to the charge memo dated September 19, 1983 be reopened. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority viz., the 2nd respondent, who by his order dated March 29, 1993 confirmed the order of the 1 st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. V. Sai-ram for the petitioner and Mrs. Prabha Srid-hevan for the respondents.
5. Mr. V. Sairam submitted that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order mechanically confirming the order of 1st respondent without giving reasons for doing so. It is further submitted that the respondents have completely erred in presuming that the petitioner ought to have got an acknowledgement. On the other hand, it is the 1st respondent who served the charge memo on the petitioner should have got the acknowledgment of the petitioner. Having failed to produce such acknowledgment the respondents have put the blame on the petitioner and inflicted punishment. The respondents having kept silent for more than five years and having, on their own accord, dropped the charges, the charge memo of the year 1989 is ill conceived and motivated. It is also not proper and against the principles of natural justice to reserve the 1983 charge memo on the petitioner during the pendency of his appeal against the order of the 1st respondent inflicting punishment. Therefore it is submitted that this was done with a view to prejudice the very appeal proceedings before the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has no locus standi whatever in directing the 1983 charge memo to be issued once again in the same order in which he has given finding against the petitioner with regard to the charge memo dated January 24, 1989. Consequently, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, mechanically confirming the same, is bad in law and unsustainable.
6. Mrs. Prabha Sridhevan denied all the alle-
gations made by the petitioner against the respondents and contended that the order impugned in this Writ Petition is not liable to be interfered with and that the same has been passed after application of mind.
7. I have gone through the charge memo dated September 19, 1983, the explanation of the petitioner dated November 24, 1983, memo of the respondents dated July 28, 1988, reply of the Petitioner to that memo dated August 3, 1988, Memo of the First Respondent dated October 11, 1988 and the impugned proceedings of the respondents dated February 19, 1991 and March 29, 1993. It is contended that after SIDCO issued charge memo to the petitioner on September 19, 1983 he was called upon to submit his explanation. The petitioner requested for permission to peruse the records and to offer his explanation. Then, he gave his explanation on November 24, 1983. Mr. M. Swaminathan, who was then the Manager, Marketing was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. It is stated by the respondents that when the file was referred to the Manager, Materials for his remarks, he reported that the file, which was in his room, had disappeared all of a sudden and as a result, the respondents were constrained to request the petitioner to furnish copies of the charge memo and the explanation therefor submitted by him. The petitioner thereafter furnished what purported to be a true coy of the charge memo dated September 19, 1983 and his explanation dated November 24, 1983. Based on this, the 1st respondent let off the petitioner with a severe reprimand as per Memo No. 6329/EC2/83 dated October 11, 1988.The order passed by the 1st respondent on October 11, 1988 reads as follows:
The explanation offered by Thiru A. Balasubramania Pillai in the reference cited is not convincing. However, taking a lenient view, he is let off with a severe warning.
8. According to the respondents it was only after the petitioner was let off with reprimand, the file curiously resurfaced and it was discovered that what purported to be true copy of the charge memo and the explanation was not in fact true copies but had been forged by the petitioner so as to reflect lesser severity in the charge
memo against him. Pursuant to the discovery, the respondents launched a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in this regard and a charge memo was issued to him. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation. An enquiry was con-ducted and based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 1st respondent by his order dated February 19, 1991 found the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. At the time of hearing, the respondents brought to my notice the true charges as per the original memo dated September 19, 1993 and the charges as per the true copy of the charge memo furnished by the petitioner.
9. The charges framed against the petitioner as per the original charge memo are as follows:
1. That Thiru A. Balasubramania Pillai has issued three release orders to the firms as per Annexure I for 5.5 M.Ts. of iron and steel materials when they were not eligible to get such release orders at the point of time without making entries in the proposal register. The release orders were not despatched to the parties but it is not known how the parties got the same.
2. That he also issued release orders and released iron and steel materials to various SSI units who are not eligible to get such R.Os. as per Annexure II
3. That Thiru A. Balasubramania Pillai, has also issued R.O. even to the Unit M/s Rani Industries. Madras -53, which was under suspension at the time of release. Thus, he had released the materials to a suspended SSI unit of his own choice without observing any guidelines and instructions, etc.
4. That he has disobeyed the orders of the superior officers by not submitting his explanation so far as called for in this memo dated March 18, 1983, first cited.
10. The charges as per what purported to be a true copy of the charge memo furnished by the petitioner to the respondents, are as under:
1. Thiru A. Balasubramanian Pillai has issued release order to the firm as per Annexure I for 0.500 M.T. of iron and steel materials when he is not eligible to get release order at the point of time.
2. That he also issued release orders to SSI Unit who is not eligible to get release order as per Annexure II.
3. That he has also issued release orders to M/s. Rani Industries, Madras – 53 under suspension at the time of release without observing any guidelines and instructions etc.
4. That he has disobeyed the orders of the superior officers by not submitting his explanation so far as called for in the office memo dated March 18, 1983.
11. Several discrepancies between the actual explanation submitted by the petitioner on November 24, 1983 and the true copy of which was subsequently furnished by the petitioner, were also pointed out. It is contended by Mrs. Prabha Sridhevan that these discrepancies have been engineered by the petitioner in order to match the doctored charge memo set out supra. I have compared the discrepancies pointed out and I am of the view that the discrepancies are glaring. As rightly pointed out by Mrs. Prabha Sridhevan, the petitioner has dishonestly forged both the charge memo as well as the explanation thereto in order that it appears that a lesser gravity of charges was involved. It may, therefore, be that the petitioner has induced SIDCO into passing the earlier order of a mere reprimand. According to Mrs. Prabha Sridhevan, this order having been obtained by fraud on the part of the petitioner, is a nullity and therefore SIDCO is entitled to ignore the same and to proceed against the petitioner once again in pursuance of the charge memo dated September 19, 1983 dehors the subsequent proceedings which culminated in the severe reprimand dated October 11, 1988.
12. It is true that apart from the discrepancies mentioned above,Annexrue I of the Original memo contained the names of the other three units while the copy furnished by the petitioner contains the name of only one unit. A suitable
alteration can be seen to have been carried out in the fraudulent and forged charge memo furnished by the petitioner so as to take care of the difference between singular and plural involved. Apart from this, Annexure II to the original charge memo contains the names of 21 units and other details while the copy produced by the petitioner contained only the names of the two units without any other particulars. It is true that the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty as charged and ordered stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.
13. But, however, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents apart from proceeding against the petitioner for misleading SIDCO, they are also entitled to proceed against him de-hors the order which it was fraudulently misled into passing, As already seen the explanation offered by the petitioner for the charge memo dated September 19, 1983 was even though not convincings however, taking a lenient view SIDCO has let off the petitioner with a severe reprimand. Having passed an order accepting the explanation of the petitioner I am of the view, the respondents cannot reopen the matter which has already reached its finality. Therefore, the respondents were clearly acting outside their competance and jurisdiction. They had no jurisdiction to subject the petitioner to another penalty for the same act of misconduct for which he had already been reprimanded. Useful reference can be made in this regard to the judgment of a Division Bench of Karnataka High court reported in R.J. Parvatikar v. Guledgud City Municipality AIR 1961 Mysore 181 and Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1967-II-LLJ-531)
14. The order of the 1st respondent dated February 19, 1991 as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated March 29, 1993 can be valid in the above circumstances only insofar as they relate to the imposition of punishment of withholding of future increments for three years with cumulative effect. In my view, the respondents have no authority to re-serve the earlier charge memo and proceed further on the basis of that charge memo.
15. It was also brought to my notice that the petitioner has committed various irregularities in the release of iron and steel materials to various Small Scale Industrial Units when he was working as Superintendent, RMD, Ambattur. It is not in dispute that on October 21, 1982 the petitioner issued six release orders for the available stock of 100 x 50 indigenous channels. But, in the proposal registers he had indicated three release orders and that he had despatched the same on October 22, 1982. However, in the numbering register maintained by Depot, entries were made in Serial No. 247 that six release orders were issued on October 22, 1982.
16. It is further pointed out that release orders have been issued to various units without entering such release orders in the proposal register. It is also pointed out that even though release orders had not been officially despatched, somehow the parties had obtained copies of the same. It is then pointed out that the petitioner had issued release orders and released iron and steel materials; which were extremely scarce at that time, to various Small Scale Industrial Units which were ineligible to get such release orders. It is also said that the petitioner had released iron and steel materials to various units of his own choice without observing the guidelines and instruction formulated for this purpose. Lastly it is said that the petitioner had issued release orders to the unit which was under suspension at the time of such release. It is therefore, seen that the offences with which the petitioner is charged are all very grave in nature and he has attempted to wriggle out of his liability by employing fraudulent means. The SIDCO had also proceeded against the petitioner in respect of his misconduct at RMD, Ambattur, and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.
17. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. The 1st respondent, who had gone through the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also the report of the Enquiry Officer, fully agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges are proved. I am of the view that the petitioner has committed serious lapses and therefore he is liable to be punished. Since all the three charges were proved
against the petitioner beyond any doubt and some were serious in nature, I am also of the view, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect imposed by the 1st respondent is just and proper. The 2nd respondent /Appellate Authority has also con-finned the finding of the first authority, considering the gravity of the lapses committed oy the petitioner. Therefore I confirm that part of the order of the respondents imposing the punishment of withholding of increment for three years with cumulative effect.
18. But, however, as pointed out by me earlier, the respondents have no legal right to reopen the proceeding which has culminated into an order on October 11, 1988. It is seen from the said order that the petitioner was let off with a severe warning taking a lenient view. As rightly pointed out by Mr. V. Sairam, the petitioner was proceeded against for his alleged misconduct at RMD, Ambattur and that punishment was imposed on him. He contended that the petitioner has been working with SIDCO for more than
thirty years without any blemish, that the respondents have dropped the charges on their own and when there is only a few months for the petitioner to retire, they have taken vindictive action by re-serving the charge memo issued in the year 1983. The petitioner also had the benefit of stay from this Court from April 29, 1993 in W.M.P.No. 13764 of 1993. I am told that the petitioner is due to retire very shortly. Therefore, taking a lenient view and also taking into consideration of the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner under the impugned proceedings, I hold that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed in so far as they relate to the revival of the earlier charge memo for contemplating further action.
19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part, thereby quashing the impugned proceedings of the respondents in so far as they relate to the revival of the original charge memo for contemplating further action against the petitioner. However, there will be no order as to costs.