WP/36210/2024 of RAMESH Vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 2 November 2026

COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.17589 of 2024 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the enquiry conducted by the third and fourth respondents, examining the witnesses on 23.04.2024 and 21.05.2024, as null and void.

2. W.P.No.36210 of 2024 has been filed challenging the enquiry report dated 28.05.2024. While the Writ Petition challenging the procedure followed in the enquiry proceedings was pending, the enquiry authority, without awaiting the outcome of the said Writ Petition, proceeded with the enquiry and submitted its report to the disciplinary authority on 28.05.2024. In view of the above fact, both the Writ Petitions are interconnected and intertwined. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together for common disposal.

3. It is relevant to mention that, if the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17589 of 2024 is allowed, there would be no necessity to independently consider the pleadings in W.P.No.36210 of 2024, as the subsequent Writ Petition is only a consequence of the proceedings impugned in W.P.No.17589 of 2024.

4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petitions are that the petitioner was working as a General Manager in the District Industries Centre, Dharmapuri. While so, one Mr.S.Ramkumar, an entrepreneur, approached the District Industries Centre seeking release of subsidy. At that juncture, one N.M.Manojdharan, an Assistant Engineer and an officer subordinate to the petitioner, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.35,000/- for releasing the subsidy amount of Rs.3.75 lakhs. The complainant lodged a complaint alleging that, when the said N.M.Manojdharan demanded the bribe, the petitioner, being his superior officer, did not take any action and, on the contrary, negotiated between them to reduce the bribe amount from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant, viz., S.Ramkumar, lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. Pursuant thereto, a trap was organised, and, as per the trap proceedings, the complainant, S.Ramkumar, handed over the bribe amount to N.M.Manojdharan on 19.04.2018.

4.1. In the said trap, N.M.Manojdharan was caught red-handed. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had also abetted the commission of the offence. Both N.M.Manojdharan and the petitioner were remanded to judicial custody on 19.04.2018. Consequent upon his arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Though the petitioner challenged the suspension, the learned Single Judge revoked the same. However, the Division Bench subsequently granted a stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a charge memorandum dated 15.04.2021, containing three charges, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging receipt of a bribe amount and, consequently, bringing disrepute to the institution.

4.2. In the Writ Appeal, a direction was issued to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17589 of 2024. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, notwithstanding the fact that the very procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceedings was under challenge, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report on 28.05.2024. The said enquiry report was subsequently challenged in another Writ Petition, viz., W.P.No.36210 of 2024.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Enquiry Officer conducted himself as a prosecutor and that he examined and cross- examined the witnesses. It is also his contention that the documents relied upon by the management to prove the charges were not furnished to the petitioner, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner while submitting his explanation. It is further contended that many of the witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that, though certain witnesses were initially examined, their statements were subsequently eschewed, without assigning any reasons, and a fresh enquiry was conducted.

6.1. It is also his contention that, whenever the witnesses were examined, their statements were not furnished to the petitioner so as to enable him to cross- examine them. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel is that there was an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, though there were two delinquents, an independent domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner without following Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is also a blatant violation of the prescribed procedure. Hence, he prayed to allow the Writ Petitions. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, reported in (1988) 6 SCC 651;

(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772;

(iii) Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 229; and

(iv) The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 155.

7. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents. He would contend that the respondent authorities had followed all the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity and the principles of natural justice were followed in it’s entirety. It is his contention that, if the petitioner had any grievance regarding non-production of documents or non-examination of witnesses in his presence, he ought to have raised the same at the time of examination of the witnesses. Whereas, the petitioner, having submitted his explanation and cross-examined the witnesses without any demur, cannot raise such a contention as an afterthought. He would further submit that, though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been violated, the said Rule has no application to the present case, as the enquiry pertains to a delinquent belonging to the same department. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Writ Petitions.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

9. Though the petitioner has challenged the enquiry report, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the veracity of the enquiry report need not be gone into at the first instance, as the validity or otherwise of the enquiry report depends upon the decision to be taken in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17589 of 2024 regarding compliance with the principles of natural justice in conducting the domestic enquiry. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the enquiry proceedings conducted between 23.04.2024 and 21.05.2024 were not in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

10. The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that the documents relied upon by the management to prove the charges were not furnished to the petitioner. In the present case, the charge memorandum was issued on 15.04.2021, and the petitioner had submitted his reply on 11.05.2021. According to the charge memorandum, the petitioner had relied upon as many as 29 documents to prove the charges, and had also cited as many as 18 witnesses. Even according to the admission made in paragraph 5 of the counter statement, the aforesaid documents were furnished to the petitioner only on 03.05.2024, that too, pursuant to a request made by the petitioner through an e-mail.

11. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that, on 23.04.2024, the petitioner was provided with questionnaires by the Enquiry Officer, seeking answers from the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules does not provide for any mechanism whereby a questionnaire is furnished to the delinquent by the Enquiry Officer, to elicit answers. It is relevant to mention that, in order to put forth his defence, the delinquent must be provided with an opportunity to depose before the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the conduct of the Enquiry Officer in eliciting answers from the petitioner as a chief examination, by way of a questionnaire, coupled with the non-furnishing of the documents relied upon in the charge memorandum for nearly three years, would clearly disclose and demonstrate a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

12. The next contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that many of the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner. In this regard, in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit, the petitioner has contended that the Enquiry Officer had furnished questionnaires and the statements of nine witnesses were examined on 23.04.2024, and that such statements were recorded in the absence of the petitioner. Though the said statement was traversed in paragraph 7 of the counter statement, the specific contention of the petitioner that the management witnesses were not examined in petitioner’s presence has not been disputed. Therefore, this Court can safely arrive at a conclusion that the witnesses relied upon by the management were not examined in the presence of the petitioner.

13. Nextly, whenever disciplinary proceedings are conducted, it is expected that the witnesses would be examined in the presence of the delinquent or his representative. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had deliberately avoided the enquiry, thereby necessitating the examination of witnesses in an ex parte manner. Therefore, in the absence of any recording to the effect that the witnesses were examined only on account of the non- cooperation of the petitioner, such examination will not pass test of natural justice. Similarly, the enquiry report, which is impugned in the other Writ Petition, does not contain any reference to the alleged non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the very conduct of examination of the witnesses in the absence of the petitioner would also vitiate the enquiry proceedings.

14. The other contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is with regard to the conduct of the Enquiry Officer. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Enquiry Officer had acted as a prosecutor. To substantiate the same, he has also produced the statements of witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Upon perusal of the said statements, this Court would able to find out that the Enquiry Officer, instead of conducting himself within the bounds of his role as an Enquiry Officer, had gone over brand beyond the permissible limits and conducted himself as a prosecutor. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saroj Kumar Sinha (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Enquiry Officer should not act as a prosecutor. It has been further been held that the Enquiry Officer cannot assume the dual role of a Judge as well as a prosecutor.

15. Though the aforesaid judgment lays down the principles governing the conduct of an Enquiry Officer, in a subsequent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately considered the manner in which an enquiry may be conducted in cases where a Presenting Officer has not been appointed by the disciplinary authority. There is no mandatory requirement that a Presenting Officer must be appointed in every case. In such circumstances, the Enquiry Officer may conduct the enquiry, but only in the capacity as a Judge. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether the Enquiry Officer had acted neutrally, the nature of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer becomes relevant.

16. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670. The relevant portions of paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 36 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:- “31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through R.V. Raveendran, C.J. (as he then was) had occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Enquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui [Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR 2004 MP 821] . In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well-recognised facets in para 7

of the judgment which is to the following effect: “7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well-recognised facets:

(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,

(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,

(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator,

(iv) A witness cannot be the adjudicator,

(v) The adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges,

(vi) The adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his superiors or others,

(vii) The adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated.”

32. The Division Bench further held that where the Enquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. Para 9 is as follows: “9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject- matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Enquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression of bias. An Enquiry Officer is in position of a judge or adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of a prosecutor. If the Enquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the prosecutor. When the Enquiry Officer conducts the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and leads them through the facts so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority against the employee or cross-examines the delinquent employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very fact that he presents the case of the employer and supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold that the Enquiry Officer does not have an open mind.”

33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in para 16 which is to the following effect: “16. We may summarise the principles thus:

(i) The Enquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.

(ii) It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.

(iii) The Enquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.

(iv) If the Enquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.

(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Enquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Enquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry. Whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may.”

36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.” (emphasis supplied)

17. As per the aforesaid ratio, the conduct of the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings has to be examined to arrive at such a conclusion. In the present case, several documents were relied upon by the petitioner, and all those documents were marked by the Enquiry Officer himself. Furthermore, upon perusal of the depositions recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it clearly discloses that the Enquiry Officer had exceeded his limits and acted as a prosecutor. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that, whenever the witnesses appeared before the Enquiry Officer, it appears that the Enquiry Officer furnished a questionnaire containing leading questions, to which the witnesses answered separately.

18. Upon perusal of the aforesaid manner of recording evidence, it clearly vindicates the contention raised by the petitioner that no witnesses were examined in the presence of the delinquent. Furthermore, as per the communication sent by the Enquiry Officer through his e-mail dated 13.05.2024, it appears that all the chief examination were furnished to the petitioner on a single date and not on the respective dates of examination qua on which day they were recorded. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

19. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shatrughan Lal (cited supra), wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “4. Now, one of the principles of natural justice is that a person against whom an action is proposed to be taken has to be given an opportunity of hearing. This opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and the documents which are proposed to be utilised against that person are indicated in the charge-sheet but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him. (See: Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India [1987 Supp SCC 518 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 226 : (1987) 5 ATC 369 : AIR 1988 SC 117] ; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India [(1986) 3 SCC 229 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 502 : (1986) 1 ATC 176 : AIR 1986 SC 2118] ; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif [(1982) 2 SCC 376 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 253 : AIR 1982 SC 937] .)

5. In High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh [1995 Supp (1) SCC 321 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 471 : (1995) 29 ATC 311] it was indicated that the delinquent officer must be supplied copies of documents relied upon in support of the charges. It was further indicated that if the documents are voluminous and copies cannot be supplied, then such officer must be given an opportunity to inspect the same, or else, the principle of natural justice would be violated.” According to the aforesaid ratio, whenever an enquiry is conducted without furnishing the relevant documents to the delinquent, the same would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

20. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram (cited supra), to contend that the previous statements of the witnesses ought to have been furnished. However, in the present case, it appears that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a criminal complaint. Therefore, there would not have been any previous statement, so as to give to the petitioner. On the other hand, in the present case, the very fact that the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner, and the documents relied upon were not furnished to him at the time of examination of the witnesses would clearly demonstrate a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

21. The contention with regard to Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules also cannot be ignored, as the petitioner and the other delinquent belong not only to the same Department but in the same office. Therefore, the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 9-A of the Rules is required to be strictly followed in the instant case.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the enquiry conducted during the period from 23.04.2024 to 21.05.2024, pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 15.04.2021, is liable to be interfered with and declared null and void. Consequently, the enquiry report dated 28.05.2024 submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned letter dated 18.10.2024 are also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court allows both the Writ Petitions and directs the respondents to conduct a de novo enquiry by duly complying with all the procedures contemplated under the applicable disciplinary rules and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Considering the pendency of the issue since 2018, the respondent authorities are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Micro, Mini and Small Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.

2. The Industries Commissioner, Directorate Of Industries And Commerce, Sidco Office Building, Guindy, Chennai -32.

3. The Enquiry Officer/General Manager, District Industries Centre, Collectorate Complex, Kancheepuram.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP Nos. 36210 and 17589 of 2024 02-11-2026