IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P. No. 38391 of 2006(T) (OA.No.2480 of 1999) P.M. Shanmugam, Block Development Officer, Kaveripakkam Panchayat Union, Vellore District ... Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. The District Collector (PD) Sathuvachari Vellore – 9 2. The Director of Rural Development Panagal Buildings Saidapet Chennai – 15 ... Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.2480 of 1999 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the punishment of reduction in rank imposed on the applicant by the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent in proceedings Rc.PA1/24752/97 dated 24.03.1999 and direct the respondents to restore the applicant to the post of Block Development Officer . For Petitioner : Mr. S. Vadivelu For Respondent : Ms. Lita Srinivasan ( Govt. Advocate for R1 to R2) ORDER The petitioner challenges the order of punishment of reduction in rank passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Rc.PA1/24752/97 dated 24.03.1999 and for a direction to the respondents to restore him to the post of Block Development Officer. 2. The petitioner joined the services in the Rural Development Department on 02.04.1962. While the petitioner was working as Block Development Officer, on 22.09.1997, he was placed under suspension by the first respondent on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges against the petitioner is contemplated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner has filed O.A.No. 4816 of 1998 before the Tribunhal. The Tribunal by order dated 09.11.1998 directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 24.03.1998 with all consequential benefits. In the meantime, the first respondent issued the charge memo dated 08.12.1997 against the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of the C.C.A. Rules. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner sought for furnishing certain documents so as to enable him to submit his explanation, but the documents sought for by him was not furnished. In the meantime, another charge memo dated 09.12.1997 was issued by the first respondent for certain other delinquencies and on receipt of this charge memo also, the petitioner sought for furnishing certain documents, but the same were not furnished to him. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 15.07.1998 for both the charge memos dated 08.12.1997 and 09.12.1997 denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed, who, after conducting an enquiry, submitted his report dated 30.11.1998 and 24.12.1998 respectively in respect of both the charge memos dated 08.12.1997 and 09.12.1997. In the report dated 24.12.1998 for the charge memo dated 09.12.1997, out of the four charges, the enquiry officer found that charge Nos. 1 to 3 are proved and the charge No.4 is not pressed. In the report dated 30.11.1998 for the charge memo dated 08.12.1997, out of the four charges, the enquiry officer found that all the charge Nos. 1 to 4 are proved. The disciplinary authority, on receipt of the enquiry officer's report passed the order of punishment reverting the petitioner from the post of Block Development Officer to Deputy Block Development Officer. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner sought for certain documents, but the same were not furnished to him. Therefore, the non-furnishing of the documents by the disciplinary authority has prejudiced him and that he could not defend the charges against him effectively. Further, the enquiry officer, in his report dated 24.12.1998 for the charge memo dated 09.12.1997 found that charge Nos. 1 to 3 were proved and 4th charge is not pressed, whereas, the disciplinary authority, even without disagreeing with charge No.4 found that the charge No.4 is also proved. Before arriving at such a conclusion, the disciplinary authority has not given any notice to the petitioner intimating his disagreement with charge No.4 and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated and it is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. The first respondent has filed a detailed reply affidavit. As per the directions of this Court on earlier occasion, the learned Government Advocate has also produced the files. The learned Government Advocate, relying upon the reply affidavit of the first respondent would contend that the petitioner has requested to furnish the copies of the relevant documents in his application dated 29.12.1997 and 05.02.1998. The Petitioner was instructed to peruse whatever records he wants during office https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hours on any working days in the Collectorate vide communication in Rc.PA1/24752/97, dated 04.02.1998. But the petitioner has not turned up to peruse the records. The petitioner has also requested in his application dated 18.02.1998 to furnish the copy of the complaint upon which the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated and the xerox copies of the above documents have already been sent to the petitioner vide office letter No.Rc.PA1/24752/97 dated 18.06.1998 which was also received by the petitioner on 29.06.1998. The learned Government Advocate also relied on the original files to show that the copies of the documents were duly served on the petitoiner and he has also acknowledged the receipt of the same. The learned Government Advocate further contended that the petitioner was charged with serious offence of misappropriation of Government funds in cash on the ground of utilising the same for electrification of Panchayat Union Schools, while in fact, the funds were misappropriated by the petitioner. In such circumstances, merely because the first respondent has not issued any notice disagreeing with the charge No.4 which was not pressed by the enquiry officer, it will not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. In any event, the first respondent has followed all the mandatory requirements before imposing the punishment and therefore interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard both sides. The petitioner mainly contended that he was not furnished with the documents sought for by him. On the basis of such an averment, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the files. From the files, it is clear that copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner have already been sent to him and it was also acknowledged by him. Therefore, this ground raised by the petitioner has to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the punishment of reduction in rank came to be imposed by the first respondent when the petitioner was about to retire in three years and therefore it is against the Rules. 7. In this connection, it is necessary to look into Rule 8 of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules which contemplate imposition of punishment to a member of the civil service of the State and every person holding a civil post under the State Government. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8 specifically provides that "Reduction to lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post not being lower than to which he was directly recruitted, whether in the same service or in another service, State or Subordinate, or to a lower time-scale not being lower than to which he was directly recruitted or to a lower stage in a time scale". The proviso to Sub-Rule (iii) states that "provided that in cases where the punishment of reduction to a lower scale in a time scale cannot be given effect to fully, the monetary value equivalent to the difference in emoluments as a result of reduction to such lower stage in the time scale for the unexpired period of the punishment shall be recovered from the person." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In view of the above specific provisions enshrined in Rule 8 (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 9. Under those circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent. Moreover, at the time of filing the Original Application, the petitioner was aged 55 years and he would have retired from service. Therefore also, the relief sought for in this writ petition need not be granted. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ub/rsh Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The District Collector (PD) Sathuvachari Vellore – 9 2. The Director of Rural Development Panagal Buildings Saidapet Chennai – 15 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.18332 PUR(CO) SR/8.11.2010 W.P.No. 38391 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/