IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN W.P.No.17482 of 2004 K.Arunachalam .. Petitioner vs. 1.District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the order in O.A.No.1472 of 2004 dated 27.4.2004 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivelu For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani,Spl.G.P. ORDER
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.K.MISRA,J.)
Heard Mr.S.Vadivelu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant in the Tenkasi Taluk Office between June 1998 and July 2001. At that stage a Pawn Broker had applied for renewal of his Pawn Broker licence, on 24.3.2001. The same was placed before the Tahsildar, who renewed it by order dated 15.5.2001. Since there was delay in serving the renewed licence on the applicant, a complaint was made and on that basis, a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner levelling five charges, which are to the following effect:
“Charge No.1: He had demanded illegal gratificationof Rs.600/- on 25.6.2001 at about 10.30 hours at his office from Thiru D.Arumainayagam, Son of Deva Asirvatham, 158 C Main Road,Pavorchatram, Tenkasi, for returning his Pawn Broker’s licence.
Charge No.2: He has kept with him the renewed licence of Thiru D.Arumainayagam from 14.5.2001 to 29.6.2001 (i.e.) for 47 days with him with mala fide intention.
Charge No.3: His act of having the renewed licence with him, without sending it to the licence holder is highly irregular and violation of office procedure.
Charge No.4: He failed to adhere the office procedure in dealing with the tapals.
Charge No.5: His conduct was unbecoming of Government Servant.”
3. The Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry, in his report held that Charge No.1 relating to the demand of bribe has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. But charge Nos.2 to 5 had been established. Thereafter the Collector, who was the disciplinary authority, forwarded the enquiry report to the petitioner for further comments, but he did not specifically indicate that he was inclined to differ from the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.1.
4. Ultimately, the petitioner submitted further explanation and the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer relating to charge Nos.2 to 5, passed an order to the following effect:
“The first charge is held as not proved. The second, third, fourth and fifth charges are held as proved. I conclude that the lapse on the part of individual is very serious, even though the charge No.1 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, lapses pointed out in charge 2,3,4 and 5 indicate mala fide on the part of individual. Such behaviour needs detrimental punishment and the individual is awarded punishment of demotion to Junior Assistant from Assistant Grade for three years.”
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application No.1472 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, while confirming the conclusion of the disciplinary authority, also observed that charge No.1 also had been proved and therefore refused to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Such order of the Tribunal is being questioned in the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the disciplinary authority had not differed from the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.1, it was not open to the Administrative Tribunal to give a finding on charge No.1. It is therefore submitted by him that if the Tribunal would not have been prejudiced by such finding given by itself relating to charge No.1, possibly it would have interfered with the punishment, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be grossly disproportionate.
7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length and gone through the materials on record.
8. Even assuming that Charge No.1 had not been proved as has been observed by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Officer, in our opinion, since charges 2 to 5 had been established, the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority in awarding the punishment was not a matter which could be interfered with by the Administrative Tribunal or by the High Court. Law is well settled that in such matters neither the Administrative Tribunal nor the High Court should sit as an appellate authority and if the charges are found to be established the punishment is a matter of discretion for the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard to all these aspects we do not find any scope to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
9. It transpires that because of the stay order passed by this Court, the order of punishment had not been implemented. Now that the order of the Disciplinary Authority had been confirmed, appropriate steps should be taken relating to the punishment being implemented.
10. It is stated that the petitioner is now holding the post of Assistant. In view of our above finding we make it clear that the petitioner should be demoted to the post of Junior Assistant for a period of three years and thereafter, he should be brought back to the post of Assistant. The W.P. is dismissed subject to above observation. No costs.
Msk
To
1.District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai 104
[ PRV / 15942 ]