2020 (12) TMI 1369 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside termination order, remands for reconsideration of punishment.

P. Babu Amamath Versus The Director of Town Panchayats 'Kuralagam', Chennai, The Secretary to Government, Municipal administration & Water Supply Chennai – 9.

The court set aside the termination order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the punishment within twelve weeks. The court found the ... Termination order - purchase orders raised, without following the procedures laid down in G.O. No.149, dated 16.07.1998 - It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent have passed a non-speaking order, which is unsustainable and the punishment imposed on him is disproportionate to the delinquency - HELD THAT:- The non-following of the guidelines mandated in G.O. No.149, dated 16.07.1998 is admitted by the petitioner, but the case of the petitioner is only to the extent that he was not aware of the said Government Order. The said government order relates to purchases to be made above a threshold limit and in the case on hand, the purchases made are above the threshold limit and, therefore, the permission of the competent authority is required - In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not followed the procedures laid down in G.O. No.149. It is further pointed out that ignorance of the petitioner of the said Government Order cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. A perusal of the materials available on record, more so the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reveal that the act of the petitioner has not caused any financial loss to the respondents, though the act of the petitioner is a lapse on his part. Further, the materials on record also reveals that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence and defend himself as the enquiry has not been conducted in a manner known to law. Proper enquiry by placing oral and documentary evidence has not been conducted, while finding the petitioner guilty of the charges - a perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent / appellate authority clearly reveals that the said order is a non-speaking order, as it has merely extracted the opinion given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, without entering into the merits of the appeal filed by the petitioner. No separate finding has been rendered by the appellate authority on the basis of the materials available before him. The order has been passed by the appellate authority mechanically without applying his mind to the materials available before him. In such a backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the respondents. This Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the respondents. However, this Court is also oblivious of the fact that almost a to remand back the matter to the respondents - the writ petition is allowed. Issues:Challenge to termination order, denial of charges, non-speaking orders, disproportionate punishment, violation of procedural formalities, delay in disposal of appeal, remand of the matter.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the termination order based on three charges, primarily related to violating purchase order procedures. The petitioner denied the charges, explaining lack of awareness and absence of financial loss. The first respondent imposed removal of service as punishment, upheld by the second respondent after a delay of over five years. The petitioner argued that the orders were non-speaking, disproportionate, and lacked proper enquiry procedures.The petitioner's counsel contended that the punishment was disproportionate and based on a lack of awareness, urging the court to intervene. The respondent emphasized the violation of rules and the need for prior approval for purchases. The respondent rejected the plea based on the delay in appeal disposal and individual case considerations.The court acknowledged the admitted violation of purchase guidelines but noted no financial loss to the respondent. It criticized the lack of proper enquiry procedures, emphasizing the non-speaking nature of the orders. The court found the punishment disproportionate and lacking proper consideration, leading to a remand of the matter for fresh assessment by the appellate authority.In its judgment, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration and refixation of the punishment within twelve weeks. The court considered the petitioner's age and the time elapsed since the incident, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice.