Disciplinary findings overturned for lack of evidence and procedural flaws. Interim stay period deemed duty time.

The Court set aside the Disciplinary Authority's findings due to lack of evidence and procedural flaws. The impugned orders were overturned, directing the respondent to consider the interim stay period as duty time with full benefits. The respondent was instructed to issue appropriate orders within six weeks. The writ petitions were granted without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer orders.
2. Validity of the charge memos.
3. Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings.
4. Procedural compliance by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Reliance on undisclosed documents by the Disciplinary Authority.
6. Inconsistent treatment of similar cases by the Disciplinary Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Transfer Orders:
The petitioners challenged the transfer orders dated 07.04.2014, which transferred them from Vellore Division to Trichy Division. The Court noted that the petitioners had filed writ petitions (W.P.Nos.11121 to 11125 of 2014) against these transfer orders, which were stayed by the Court. The transfer orders were ultimately disposed of with certain directions, and the petitioners complied by joining the transferred posts.

2. Validity of the Charge Memos:
The charge memos dated 30.04.2014 alleged that the petitioners, while serving as Deputy Commercial Tax Officers (DCTO) at Kottakuppam check-post, accepted transit passes for vehicles transporting oil to Puducherry without actual movement of goods, causing revenue loss to the Government. The petitioners submitted explanations to these charge memos, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the charges.

3. Disciplinary Authority's Disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's Findings:
The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges were not proved, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed. The Disciplinary Authority cited reasons for disagreement, including verification of vehicular movement at Anumanthai Toll Plaza and other materials, concluding that the charges were proved. The punishment imposed was the stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

4. Procedural Compliance by the Disciplinary Authority:
The Court found that the Disciplinary Authority did not follow the established procedure when disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's findings. According to the Supreme Court's dictum in Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. [(2006) 9 SCC 440], the Disciplinary Authority must give notice to the delinquent employee setting out tentative conclusions and, after hearing the employee, arrive at a final finding. This procedure was not followed, rendering the Disciplinary Authority's actions procedurally flawed.

5. Reliance on Undisclosed Documents by the Disciplinary Authority:
The Disciplinary Authority's decision was based on certain documents and records not disclosed to the petitioners. The Court noted that no oral evidence was let in, and no documents were marked during the enquiry. The reliance on undisclosed documents and circumstantial evidence without proper disclosure to the petitioners was deemed unsustainable by the Court.

6. Inconsistent Treatment of Similar Cases by the Disciplinary Authority:
The Court observed that three Office Assistants, proceeded against on the same set of allegations, were exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority, who accepted the Enquiry Officer's findings in those cases. This inconsistent treatment, where the petitioners were punished while others were not, further highlighted the arbitrary nature of the Disciplinary Authority's actions.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Disciplinary Authority's findings were based on no evidence and were procedurally flawed. The impugned orders dated 20.07.2016 were set aside, and the respondent was directed to treat the period during which interim stay orders were in force as duty period with all service and monetary benefits. The respondent was also instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within six weeks. The writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were imposed.

---