IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.28339 of 2006(T) O.A.No.6947 of 1995 P.Thiruvengadam .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 3. The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Madras-108. 4.The Collector of North Arcot, Ambedkar District, Vellore. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.(1pa) No.303, dated 2.12.1994 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the applicant all monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was initially selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, through the employment exchange, on merits. The petitioner had joined service, on 22.12.1969. He was promoted to the post of Executive Officer, Grade II, in the year 1986 and later, he was promoted to the post of Executive Officer, Grade I, in the year 1987. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Executive Officer, Selection grade, in the year 1992. When he was serving as a Grade II Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Peranamallur, a charge memo, with six charges, was served on the petitioner with regard to certain cheques, cash books of general fund and National Rural Employment Programme etc. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner denying the charges, an order, dated 26.10.1987, had been issued, by the District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, on 18.4.1988, and the said appeal was rejected by the Director of Town Panchayat in his proceedings, dated 27.12.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a review petition, dated 17.3.1989, to the second respondent. Referring to the representation, dated 28.8.92, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 21.2.94, modifying the earlier order of punishment granted to the petitioner. According to the modified order, the petitioner was imposed with the minor punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6947 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re- numbered as W.P.No.28339 of 2006. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner, who had worked as an Executive Officer, Peranamallur Town Panchayat, from 1.10.1985 to 11.5.87, had been found to have committed serious irregularities of issuing cheques without proper details in the counter foils and in the cash book, even after his transfer from Peranamallur Town Panchayat and he had also drawn funds without proper vouchers. 4. On the basis of the report submitted by the competent authority, six charges had been framed against the petitioner by the Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules. Based on the charges framed against the petitioner, he had submitted his explanation, by his letter dated 25.9.1987. After examining the explanation given by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner it was held that the charges, except Charge No.5, were held as proved. Considering the gravity of the charges, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect, by an order of the Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, dated 27.10.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in his petition, dated 18.4.1988. Since the petitioner had not put forth any valid reason in his appeal, the order of punishment imposed by the Collector was confirmed by the Director of Town Panchayat, Madras, dated 27.12.1988. The petitioner had preferred a review petition to the Government against the impugned order passed by the Collector. The Government, after consulting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.303, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 2.12.1994, reducing the punishment imposed earlier to one year with stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, imposed on the petitioner by an order made in the review petition filed by him, is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and that it is arbitrary, invalid and unsustainable in the eye of law and therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the impuned order, dated 2.12.1994, had been passed by the first respondent without applying his mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the explanation submitted by him. Though the said order has been made based on the opinion rendered by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, it has been passed mechanically, without dealing with the issues, independently, on merits and in accordance with law. 7. In such circumstances, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would suffice if the order of the first respondent, dated 2.12.1994, made in G.O.Ms.No.303, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order, considering the issues raised in the review petition and the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the order passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the first respondent, on 2.12.1994, in the review petition filed by the petitioner is bereft of reasons. It is clear that the issues arising for adjudication in the review petition have not been independently assessed, before the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Even though, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has been consulted before the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent, the opinion rendered by the Commission could not be taken to be binding on the first respondent. Hence, the first respondent ought to have analysed the facts and circumstances of the case in which the issues have arisen for consideration and independent reasons ought to have been given while passing the impugned order, dated 2.12.1994. While emphasising the importance of the need to give reasons, the Supreme Court, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education V. K.S.Gandhi and others (1991 (2) SCC 716), had held as follows: "21. Thus it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the Appellate or Revisional Authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person." 9. In such circumstances, the order passed by the first respondent, on 2.12.1994, is set aside, directing the first respondent to consider the review petition filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition is partly allowed with the above directions. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 3. The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Madras-108. 4.The Collector of North Arcot, Ambedkar District, Vellore. +1cc to Mr.R.Singaravelan, Advocate Ar 32409 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 32416 KU (CO) km/21.7. Writ Petition No.28339 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/