2021 (9) TMI 1468 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court overturns Disciplinary Authority's decision, citing procedural flaws, lack of defense opportunity.

P. Babu Amarnath Versus The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam-Chennai, The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department

The Madras High Court set aside the Disciplinary Authority's order in a writ appeal where the appellant challenged the remand order to the Appellate ... Principles of natural justice - no proper enquiry - non speaking order - HELD THAT:- Appellant submitted that after the orders of the learned single Judge, the Government has sent a communication to the appellant to send a representation, based on which the representation has already been sent. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the respondents/State. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the appellant is pending before them and that they will take a decision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order shall be passed and decision shall be communicated to the appellant within a period of two weeks thereafter. Appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Appellant challenging order remanding matter to Appellate Authority.2. Lack of proper enquiry and non-speaking order by Appellate Authority.3. Appellant's representation to Appellate Authority post judgment.4. Appellant's attempt to seek reduction in punishment while filing writ appeal.5. Government's communication to appellant for representation.Analysis:The writ appeal before the Madras High Court involved the appellant challenging the order of remand to the Appellate Authority following an order made in a previous writ petition. The petitioner contended that the Court had found no proper enquiry and criticized the non-speaking order of the Appellate Authority. It was argued that the Appellate Authority merely confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority without providing a separate finding. Despite acknowledging a lapse on the part of the petitioner, the Court noted that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to present a defense during the enquiry.The appellant's Senior Counsel submitted that a representation had been made to the Appellate Authority post the single Judge's orders, requesting a review. However, the Court did not accept this submission, emphasizing that the appellant cannot simultaneously seek a reduction in punishment from the Appellate Authority while challenging the correctness of the enquiry through the writ appeal. The Court was clear that the matter should not revert to the Enquiry Officer for a fresh proceeding, effectively setting aside the Disciplinary Authority's order.Subsequently, it was revealed that the Government had communicated with the appellant to send a representation, which had been duly submitted. The Government Advocate assured the Court that a decision would be made within three weeks of receiving the judgment copy, with the outcome communicated to the appellant within an additional two weeks. Based on this representation, the Court disposed of the writ appeal, with no costs imposed.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, the prohibition against forum shopping, and the need for a balanced approach in disciplinary matters. The Court's decision underscored the significance of upholding principles of natural justice while ensuring accountability and transparency in administrative actions.