http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. NATARAJAN & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned counsel for both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment and common  order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 30.4.1996 in OA Nos. 3804/94.      The  admitted   facts  are   that  on   10.2.1987,  the respondent misbehaved  with two  ladies and  outraged  their modesty and took them Into the lock up in the earlier hours, i.e., at  0200 hours.  When two  person intervened,they were beaten by them ; As a consequence, an enquiry was held and a criminal case  was also  instituted against the respondents. When they  were asked  to appear before the Enquiry Officer, they failed  to appear  in spite  of  several  opportunities given  to  them.  As  a  result,  the  Enquiry  Officer  was constrained to  record the findings and recommend imposition of the  punishment of  stoppage  of  three  increments  with cumulative effect.  After the  receipt of  the  report,  The disciplinary authority had issued notices to the respondents as  to  why  major  penalty  should  not  be  given  to  the respondents. The respondents asked for opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and sought fresh enquiry on the ground that by  that date  the  criminal  case  filed  against  the respondents was  withdrawn. The competent authority declined to accede  to the  request and  imposed  the  punishment  of removal from service. Feeling aggrieved, They filed O.As. in the Tribunal.  The Tribunal  allowed the O.As. on the ground that  the   disciplinary  authority  did  not  consider  the evidence to  justify the  finding of  proof of  charges  and violated the principles of natural justice. We find that the Tribunal was  not justified  in reaching  the conclusion for the  reason  that  the  Tribunal  itself  has  categorically recorded findings at pages 8-10 as under :      "the  applicants   were  asked   to      appear before  the Enquiry Officer,      but, They wrote to them saying that      since   the   Criminal   case   was      proceeding  against   them   in   a      Criminal Court  they would  suggest      that the  departmental  proceedings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    might   be   postponed   till   the      disposal    of     the     Criminal      proceedings.  The  Enquiry  Officer      was right  in holding the view that      there was  no bar  for departmental      proceedings   to   go   while   the      criminal  proceedings   were  being      conducted at the appropriate forum.      The applicants  had chosen  not  to      participate  in   the  departmental      proceedings because  of the  reason      that the  criminal proceedings  and      the departmental proceedings should      not   go   simultaneously.   Though      ignorance of  law is not an excuse,      the  Enquiry  Officer  should  have      taken some  steps to  convince  the      applicants of the settled principle      of law  that both  the criminal and      departmental proceedings  could  go      simultaneously and  advised them to      participate in the enquiry. But the      applicants did  not yield  and only      after the  criminal  was  withdrawn      against them,  they chose to appear      before  the  authorities  concerned      for  the   enquiry.   The   Enquiry      Officer did  not wait for the stage      to materialise  and he  passed  his      ex-parte findings.  The  applicants      refused  to  appear  for  the  oral      enquiry    instead    of    several      opportunities   giver    to   them.      Therefore,  it   was   decided   to      examine the  prosecution witness in      the  absence   of  the  applicants.      After the  examination of P.Ws. the      applicants were  directed to appear      to  cross-examine  the  prosecution      witnesses if  they so desired. Even      then   they    did   not    appear.      Therefore, the  Enquiry was treated      as  closed   after  examining   the      prosecution witnesses and a finding      was  arrived   at  based   on   the      materials   available    with   the      prosecution  side.  The  applicants      were even  asked  to  submit  their      list of witnesses to be examined as      Defence Witnesses, but they did not      submit their  written statement  of      defence if  they desired,  but they      did not  do that also. Finally, the      applicants wrote  saying that  they      submitted their  representation  to      the Superintendent of Police and he      replied  and  after  recieving  the      reply from  the  Superintendent  of      police, a  representation  for  the      change  of   Enquiry  Officer   was      turned down  by the  Superintendent      of  Police.  Finally,  enquiry  was      closed  and   ex-parte  minute  was      prepared. Based  on the findings of      the  Enquiry  Officers"  report  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    both the  cases, the Superintendent      of Police awarded the punishment of      reduction in  time scale of pay for      three years  with cumulative effect      to the applicant in O.A. No.3804/91      and removed  the applicant  in O.A.      3805/91 from service."      In view  of these findings, we think that no procedural illegalities were  committed in  conducting the enquiry. The question is:  what  punishment  should  be  awarded  to  the respondents? The  Enquiry Officer himself has recommended to impose  penalty   of  stoppage   of  three  increments  with cumulative effect.  We find  that the  Enquiry  Officer  was justified. On  the facts  and circumstances  of the case, we set aside  the order  of the  removal from service. Instead, the  disciplinary   authority  is  directed  to  impose  the punishment of  stoppage of  four increments  with cumulative effect.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed.  No  costs.  The respondents are not entitled for any back wages.