Disciplinary Authority Must Issue Second Show Cause Notice If It Disagrees With Enquiry Officer's Report In Favour Of Delinquent Employee: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has observed that the disciplinary authorities must issue a proper second show cause notice if it chooses to disagree with the Enquiry Officer's report in favour of the delinquent employee.
The Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed, “In that view of the matter, it can be seen that neither proper second show-cause notice was issued nor the reasons for disagreement were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner was given an opportunity to put-forth his explanation…The respondents have to continue from the stage of issuing second show-cause notice… If the respondents choose to proceed afresh, the second show- cause notice should contain the tentative findings of the disciplinary authority indicating the reasons for disagreement and the petitioner should be called upon to submit his explanation regarding the same. Thereafter, the petitioner's explanation should be objectively and dispassionately considered and only thereafter, a final decision can be taken.”
Senior Advocate R. Singaravelan appeared for the Petitioner while Government Advocate S. Balmurugan appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order passed by the District Collector as being arbitrary, and illegal as the major punishment of dismissal from service was passed without taking note of the admitted factual aspects and legal principles of law and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service with all service and monetary benefits and further direct the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits including the monthly pension, commutation of pension, surrender leave, gratuity, provident fund and the special provident fund.
The Court had previously passed an order whereby the respondents were directed to get instructions as to whether a show cause notice was issued, then communicated and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain.
The Court relied on a recent judgment of the Court in M. Paulpandi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (June 2024 Madras) in which it was held, “If the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are in favour of the delinquent and it has been held that the charges are not proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. The formation of opinion should be tentative and not final. It is at this stage that the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity of hearing after he is informed of the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has proposed to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order.
Cause Title: T.S. Jawahar Ali Khan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:2194)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate R Singaravelan and Advocate V Ambika
Respondents: Government Advocate S. Balmurugan
