THE INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM versus S. ARICHANDRAN & ORS on 23 September 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated29.10.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 2735 of 2021 by which the Division Benchof the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed theorder passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant toreinstate the respondent – original writ petitioner into service and payarrears payable to him, the District Collector, Salem District, Tamil Naduhas preferred the present appeal.

2. That a departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent,who was a Panchayat Assistant, for having committed the misconductof misappropriation of funds pertaining to Samuthram Panchayat inconnivance with the erstwhile President of the said Panchayat. By orderdated 25.09.2006, an order of punishment was passed against therespondent – delinquent. The order of punishment was the subject matterof Writ Petition No. 1710 of 2007 before the High Court.

2.1 By judgment and order dated 07.01.2009, the High Courtallowed the said Writ Petition by quashing the order of dismissal andremanded the matter for fresh disposal observing that no inquirywhatsoever was held as required under the law. That thereafter, onremand, the inquiry was conducted after affording an opportunity to thedelinquent to defend his case. However, without giving a copy of theInquiry Report to the delinquent and without calling for his comments onthe Inquiry Officer’s Report, a fresh order dated 11.06.2009 came to bepassed. The delinquent – respondent filed a writ petition before the HighCourt by way of Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2012.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.2 The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition andordered reinstatement with back wages by observing that the order ofdismissal dated 11.06.2009 was in breach of principles of Natural Justiceas the copy of the Inquiry Report was not given to the delinquent andwithout calling for his comments on the Inquiry Officer’s Report, theorder of dismissal was passed. The judgment and order passed by theBlearned Single Judge was the subject matter of appeal before the DivisionBench.

A

2.3 By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench ofthe High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge to reinstate theCrespondent with full back wages. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court is the subject matter ofpresent appeal before this Court.

3. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG appearing on behalf ofthe appellant has vehemently submitted that the respondent was chargeDsheeted for a very serious offence of misappropriation of the amountbelonging to the Panchayat. It is submitted that if the Hon’ble HighCourt found the order of punishment in breach of Natural Justice, in thatcase, the matter ought to have been remanded to the DisciplinaryAuthority to conduct the inquiry form the point that it stood vitiated.EReliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Chairman,Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani,(2013) 6 SCC 530 as well as in the case of State of Uttar Pradeshand Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh, 2022 SCC Online SC 341.

3.1 Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions,Fit is prayed to set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed bythe Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge of the HighCourt and to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct theinquiry from the point that it stood vitiated.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri S. Nagamuthu,Glearned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4.1 it is submitted by Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the respondent that in the facts and circumstancesof the case, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Benchhave committed any error in setting aside the order of dismissal andordering reinstatement with full back wages.H

4.2 It is submitted that when earlier the order of dismissal waspassed, the same was set aside by the learned Single Judge and thematter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass freshorder after holding the inquiry and despite the same again the order ofdismissal came to be passed in breach of principles of Natural Justice.It is submitted that therefore as rightly observed by the Division Bench,time and again, the opportunities are not to be given to the DisciplinaryAuthority to pass fresh orders. It is submitted that therefore, the Hon’bleHigh Court has rightly not passed any order of remand to the Disciplinaryauthority.

4.3 It is further submitted that in the present case, as such, thereis no loss caused to the Panchayat and the entire amount has beendeposited by the Panchayat President.

4.4 It is further submitted that the respondent is suffering since2006 and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court may not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powersunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned SingleJudge has set aside the order of dismissal passed by the DisciplinaryAuthority on the ground that the same was in breach of principles ofNatural Justice, in as much as, the copy of the Inquiry Officer’s Reportwas not furnished to the delinquent and his comments were not calledfor on the Inquiry Officer’s Report. It is to be noted that the respondent– delinquent was facing the departmental inquiry with respect to a veryserious charge of misappropriation. Therefore, the High Court ought tohave remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to conductthe inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated.

6.1 At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case ofRajit Singh (supra), in which this Court had considered its earlierdecision in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) is required to be referredto. In paragraph 15, it is observed and held as under:- “15. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that theTribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were againstthe principles of natural justice in as much as the documentsmentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a casewhere it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/orthe same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in thatcase, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and thematter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/DisciplinaryAuthority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage ofviolation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiryhas to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessarydocuments mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged tohave not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case.In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A.Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was also pressed intoservice on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it isobserved in paragraph 16 as under:—

“16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court setsaside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquirywas not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate theemployee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinaryauthority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that itstood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B.Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyyav. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg.Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union ofIndia v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).”

6.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts of the case on hand and as the order of dismissalhas been set aside on the ground that the same was in breach of principlesof Natural Justice, the High Court ought to have remitted the caseconcerned to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from thepoint that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing acopy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and to give opportunity tothe delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer’s Report.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passedby the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge of the High Courtordering reinstatement with back wages are hereby quashed and setaside. The case concerned is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority toconduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude

the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s Report andafter giving an opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments onthe Inquiry Officer’s Report. The aforesaid exercise be completed withina period of six months from today. However, at the same time, consideringthe fact that earlier also the dismissal order was set aside on the groundthat the same was found to be in breach of principles of Natural Justiceand the matter was remitted back and thereafter again when the freshorder of dismissal has been passed, which is again found to be in violationof principles of Natural Justice and again the matter is to be remittedback, we allow the present appeal with costs to be paid by the appellantto the respondent - delinquent quantified at Rs. 50,000/-, which shall bepaid to the respondent – delinquent within a period of six weeks fromtoday.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H