IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2009
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.9341 OF 2007
R.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
Tamil Development, Culture and
Religious Endowments Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai 9
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Utharmar Gandhi Salai
Chennai 34. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari by way of transfer of O.A.No.864 of 2002, to call for the records and to set-aside the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.129 dated 02.08.2001.
For Petitioner : Mr.Stalin Muthu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
- - -
O R D E R
The Original Application in O.A.No.864 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.9341 of 2007 before this Court.
2. Heard Mr.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is a Joint Commissioner in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. He was working as a Joint Commissioner in Vellore Division during 06.08.1996 to 11.06.1997 for a period of nine months. 338 listed temples were under his control; besides, two temples were under his direct control and four temples under the Assistant Commissioner were all under his jurisdiction. Mr.Pandiyan was the Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer at Thiruvannamalai Arul Migu Arunachalaeswarar Temple, while the petitioner was a Joint Commissioner.
4. A Charge Memo dated 02.08.2001 was issued to him making six charges, relating to his lack of supervision of the aforesaid temple. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found all the charges were not proved, except charge No.4, which was held to be partly proved.
5. Based on such a finding of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.129, dated 02.08.2001 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year.
6.The petitioner filed O.A.864 of 2002 ( W.P.No.9341 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.129, dated 02.08.2001.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crux of the allegations made in charge No.4 was that he failed to effectively supervise the temple, resulting in non fixation of fair rent for 138 grounds and 1165 sq ft, at Adayar, Chennai. The learned counsel submits that the only departmental witness examined in the enquiry was Mr.Pandiyan, the Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer of the concerned temple and no other witness was examined. The said witness supported the defence, i.e. the petitioner. It is also submitted that, when all the other charges were held as not proved, based on the evidence of Mr.Pandiyan, by the Enquiry Officer as well as in the first respondent, the fourth charge also should have been held, as not proved, on the same reasoning.
8. On the other hand the learned special Government Pleader, HR & CE, seeks to sustain the impugned order.
9. Based on my direction the files were produced. I have perused the entire materials on record.
10. I am conscious of the fact that, while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, on matters like this, this court could not act as an appellate authority and this court could interfere, only to a limited extent, if the findings are perverse.
11. For appreciation of the facts, charge No.4 is extracted here under.
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
12. The evidence of Mr.Pandiyan, Assistant Commissioner, as extracted by the Enquiry Officer himself in his report while considering charge No.4 is also extracted here under:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
I am of the considered view, in view of the said evidence of the Assistant Commissioner, The Enquiry Officer ought to have held that entire charge No.4 was not proved. Otherwise, the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the first respondent on the charge No.4 have to be characterised as perverse.
13. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct in his submission that when based on the evidence of Mr.Pandiyan, the Enquiry Officer held other charges were not proved, the same logic could equally apply for the charge No.4 also. The learned counsel brings to my notice, as an illustration, to compare charge No.1, which was held as not proved, with the charge No.4.
Charge No.1 is extracted here under:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
14. Therefore, by comparing Charge No.1 and Charge No.4, the first respondent / enquiry officer, having held that the Charge No.1 as not proved, on the same analogy, they should have held that the Charge No.4 also as not proved. I am in entire agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the punishment imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner is bound to lose further promotion and his juniors will march over him.
16. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. No costs.
rns
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Tamil Development, Culture and
Religious Endowments Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai 9
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Utharmar Gandhi Salai
Chennai 34