The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed against the orders of the Tahsildar of Devakottai Taluk since before the passing of the orders, the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. Denial of such opportunity was held as violative of principles of natural justice.
Brief Facts:
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Village Assistant in the year 2011 and he has been discharging his duty without any complaint. The then Tahsildar, who joined during September, 2017, started to treat the Village Assistants as slaves and insisted to do other works, which was opposed by the petitioner as the Secretary of the Employees' Union. Due to which, the then Tahsildar issued three charge memos on 14.02.2018, 20.02.2018 and 22.02.2018. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5114 of 2018. This Court vide order, dated 06.11.2019, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the official respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 31.12.2018. However, without furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner and without issuing show-cause notice to him, within a period of 14 days, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Challenging the said orders of punishment, the above writ petition was filed with the aforesaid prayer.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
There is violation of principles of natural justice as the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The government pleader appearing on the behalf of the respondent conceded and fairly submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders and therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration.
Observations of the Court:
The Court agreed with the stance taken by the petitioner and observed that a fresh action must be initiated where the respondent shall furnish the enquiry report along with a show-cause notice to the petitioner and if any show-cause notice is issued, the petitioner must give an explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the enquiry report and the show-cause notice and after receipt of such explanation and after conducting enquiry, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter, after providing a fair opportunity to the petitioner.
Decision of the Court:
This writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders of the respondent in Na.Ka.Aa3/588.2017, dated 04.01.2019 and Na.Ka.Aa3/725.2018, dated 04.01.2019, was set aside.
Case Title: M. Radhakrishnan vs The Tahsildar, Devakottai Taluk
Coram: Mr. Justice M. Dhandapani
Case No./Citation: W.P.(MD)No.5226 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)No.4569 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Suresh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.P. Maharajan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
