DP Evidence 2

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Printed For: Mr N. DILIP KUMAR
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P. (MD) No. 10932 of 2013
S. Narayanan v. Superintending Engineer
2016 SCC OnLine Mad 23837
In the High Court of Madras

(BEFORE T. RAJA, J.)
S. Narayanan .…. Petitioner

v.
1. The Superintending Engineer, O/o. Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Distribution Circle/Metro, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
(TANGEDCO Ltd.), K. Pudur, Madurai.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Station, Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board (TANGEDCO Ltd.), Villapuram, Madurai .…. Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 10932 of 2013
Decided on September 2, 2016
Service Laws — Proceedings of removal from service — Challenged — No witness
examined to find out veracity of documents produced by petitioner — Held that Enquiry
Officer, without following any principle adumbrated in service jurisprudence, simply held
charge of impersonation against petitioner stood proved — Further held that when
petitioner was charged with serious allegations of forgery and impersonation Enquiry Officer
cannot arrive at finding without any direct or indirect evidence — Hence impugned order
quashed — Writ petition allowed with direction to respondents to reinstate petitioner with all
backwages
(Para 18)
For Petitioner: Mr. P. Gunasekaran
For Respondents: Mr. S. Dhayalan
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
proceedings in Ku. No. 596/Mo.Po/Ma. Mee.Pa.Va/Pa.Na/Vu. Nee.A/Nee.
PeeII/Utha4/Ko.Vo.Na/2007-1, dated 15.06.2013 on the file of the first respondent
herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner with backwages and all attended benefits.
ORDER
T. RAJA, J.:— By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2013
passed by the first respondent/the Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Madurai, in
and by which, the petitioner was removed from service.
2. During the time the Court was under long boycott by the lawyers, learned
counsel for the petitioner failed to appear and therefore, the petitioner has attempted
to appear as party-in-person, however, since the issue involved in this matter is little
bit complicated in nature, this Court, in the interest of both parties, has appointed Mr.
P. Gunasekaran, as the counsel for the petitioner to assist the petitioner as well as this
Court.
3. Mr. P. Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially,
the petitioner along with 80000 persons were deployed by the respondent Board as
helpers on contract basis. Subsequently, in the year 1990-1991, the respondent Board
ousted the contract labours as they wanted to recruit the helpers on regular time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scale. Aggrieved against such stand taken by the respondent Board, the Trade Union
raised several industrial disputes before the Labour Courts in all over the State and
finally, the said issue went upto the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court
constituted a committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalid (Retd.) with a direction
to work out a solution to resolve the issue. After elaborate enquiry, His Lordship filed a
status report observing that the contract labours and new entrants can be appointed
as helpers at the ratio of 1:1 basis. Thereafter, a Circle Level Committee was
constituted to identify the contract labours and thereupon the Committee verified the
records and identified the eligible contract labours and in the said committee, the
petitioner had also appeared on 16.12.1997 and after verification, he was appointed as
helper in the regular post by virtue of an order passed by the Chief Engineer, Chennai,
dated 14.03.1998.
4. While the facts stood above, learned counsel for the petitioner contended, the
respondent Board, overlooking the above said factual aspects, issued a charge memo
dated 27.05.2002 containing three charges and finally, the Enquiry Officer submitted
his report holding that the charge Nos. 1 and 3 as proved and charge No. 2 as not
proved. Based on such report, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 29.07.2005,
imposed an order of punishment with stoppage of increment for a period of three years
with cumulative effect. The said punishment has become final as the petitioner did not
prefer any appeal against the same. However, to the shock and surprise of the
petitioner, he was again issued with a second charge memo dated 22.04.2006 for the
very same charges as the charge Nos. 2 and 3 were already contained in the first
charge memo dated 27.05.2002. However, with regard charge No. 2 which states that
the petitioner has impersonated Jeeva @ Jeevanathan, son of K. Raman for the post of
helper in TNEB, though the petitioner had produced the documents, such as Voter ID,
Adhar Card and Driving license, to disprove the same, the respondent Board did not
consider the same and ultimately, the respondent Board came to the conclusion that
all the charges are proved, when the charge Nos. 2 and 3 are the repetition of the
earlier charge Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. Thus, he contended, no punishment can be
imposed on the very same set of charges as the same is hit by the doctrine of double
jeopardy, inasmuch as he was punished for the same charges on earlier occasion.
Moreover, the present charge No. 3 was already found not proved by the Enquiry
Officer, whileso, the same charge cannot be put against the petitioner. Besides, the
same charge cannot be found proved.
5. In support of his submissions, he had also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in D. Narayanan v. District Revenue Officer (W.P. No.
28847 of 2004, dated 17.02.2009) to contend that once a person was imposed with a
punishment, again on the basis of the same misconduct or charge, he cannot be
revisited with another punishment which will amount to double jeopardy, therefore,
the petitioner ought not to have been repeatedly punished by the respondent Board
for the second time on the basis of the very same set of charges.
6. Again, taking support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570], learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that to substantiate the charge of impersonation, when the
petitioner had produced the documents like Voter ID, Adhar Card and Ration Card, the
respondent Board, without adverting to any one of the documents, only on mere
surmises and assumptions, dismissed the petitioner from service, therefore, he
pleaded, the petitioner should be reinstated in service with all backwages.
7. Per contra, Mr. S. Dhayalan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Board
submitted that as the petitioner, by producing bogus certificates, had got appointment
as helper on 14.03.1998, several complaints were received by them which lead to the
appointment of the Enquiry Officer to delve into such complaints. In the eqnuiry, the
petitioner was not able to defend his claim to prove that he is S. Narayanan, son of K.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sivaraman. Finally, on the basis of the report submitted by the Additional Director of
Police, Vigilance, the petitioner was issued with a charge of impersonation, for which
he was also found guilty by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately, he was imposed with
an order of termination from service. Therefore, he pleaded, such an order of
termination passed by the respondent Board, by following procedures adumbrated in
law, cannot be interfered with.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 27.05.2002
containing three charges as stated below;
“(i) The petitioner had produced bogus school certificate as if he studied upto Vth
standard in Thodaneri, Madurai District.
(ii) Produced bogus experience certificate
(iii) On the basis of bogus certificates he received salary and other allowances.”
10. With regard to the above said charges, it is the contention of the petitioner that
he was initially appointed as helper on contract basis along with 80000 persons.
However, in the year 1990-1991, since the respondent Board wanted to recruit the
helpers on regular time scale basis, the Trade Union raised several industrial disputes
before the Labour Courts in all over the State, which ultimately went upto the
Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court constituted a committee head by the
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalid (Retd.) to resolve this issue. After elaborate enquiry, the
committee submitted its report observing that the contract labours and new entrants
can be appointed as helpers at the ratio of 1:1 basis. Thereafter, for the purpose of
identifying contract labours, a Circle Level Committee was constituted along with the
members of the local trade Union and thereupon, the Circle Level Committee, on
conducting the interview and verification of the records, identified the eligible contract
labours, in which the name of the petitioner was also found place. It is also further
observed in the report submitted by the Justice Khalid committee that since the
contract labours were already working as helpers, they need not produce any
educational qualification certificates, instead their length of service itself could be
construed as equal to the educational qualification. Accordingly, in the light of such
report, the petitioner was appointed as helper in regular post by virtue of an order
passed by the Chief Engineer, dated 14.03.1998.
11. Thus, the charge memo dated 27.05.2002 issued by the respondent Board
alleging that the petitioner had produced bogus school certificates and bogus
experience, in my view, cannot be sustained in the light of the report submitted by the
Justice Khalid Committee which categorically observed that the contract labours need
not produce any educational qualification certificates as their length of service could be
construed as educational qualification. However, based on the said charge memo,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and ultimately, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 05.11.2003 holding that the charge Nos. 1
and 3 as proved and Charge No. 2 as not proved.
12. In the meantime, the Chief Engineer, TNEB, passed a proceeding in (Per) B.P.
(F.P.) No. 27, dated 07.11.2002, stating that in cases where persons were dismissed
or removed from service for the charge of production of bogus certificates, they should
be again reinstated into service and instead of removal or dismissal, reduction of pay
to the minimum of the time scale of pay for three years could be imposed as
punishment. For better appreciation, relevant portions of the said proceedings are
extracted below:
“6. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board hereby passes the following
orders:
a(i) The punishment of removal/dismissal from service imposed by the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superintending Engineers for production of bogus certificate for qualification,

age by contract labourers absorbed as Helpers shall be cancelled.
b(ii) In these cases the punishment of dismissal/removal imposed shall be
modified to that of reduction of pay to the minimum of the time scale of pay
of the post held on the date of issue of orders for a period of 3 years which will
operate for future increments.
b) The period of suspension/absence of these workmen shall be regularised as
detailed in para 5 above.
7. The Superintending Engineers are informed that when the School records are
found bogus the date of birth indicated in the school records and reckoned earlier
for determining the age of the workman cannot hold good. Hence, in these cases,
the individual workman may be directed to obtain and produce birth certificates
from competent authorities for determining their age. In cases there is difficulty to
obtain birth certificate, Medical Certificate from the D.M.O. or equivalent rank may
be accepted.
8. The above orders will strictly apply only to the case of contract labourers
absorbed as helpers and who were dismissed/removed from service solely for
production of bogus certificate.
9. The Superintending Engineers are informed that the orders shall be issued to
individual only after obtaining clearance from this office.? Therefore, following such
order passed by the Chief Engineer, the first respondent, vide order dated
29.07.2005, imposed a punishment of reduction of pay for three years with
cumulative effect against the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge the said
punishment and therefore, the same had become final.
13. It is settled legal position that no person should be vexed twice for the same
set of charges as that would amount to double jeopardy. However, in the instant case,
ignoring such legal position, the respondent Board issued another charge memo dated
22.04.2006 by simply repeating the charge Nos. 2 and 3 found in the earlier charge
memo dated 27.05.2002, by adding one more charge. For better appreciation, the
same is extracted below:
(i) The original name of the petitioner was R. Jeeva @ Jeevanandam, son of R.
Ravanan. But he had got employment by impersonating one C. Narayanan.
(ii) By suppressing his original name and by producing bogus certificates, the
petitioner received salary and allowances.
(iii) The petitioner produced bogus experience certificate.
14. A bare perusal of the above charges would show that the above said Charge No.
2 is nothing but the repetition of Charge No. 3 of the earlier charge memo dated
27.05.2002 extracted at page No. 6 above. In addition thereto, the above said Charge
No. 3 is also the repetition of Charge No. 2 of the earlier charge memo, which was
ultimately found not proved by the disciplinary authority.
15. Thus, the respondent Board cannot subsequently reopen the matter and inflict
another order of dismissal from service, which is impugned herein, especially when the
respondent Board had already imposed a punishment of reduction of pay for 3 years
with cumulative effect against the petitioner by order dated 29.07.2005 on the very
same charges. In the instant case, as stated above, it is admitted that the petitioner
had already been punished on the charge of production of bogus certificates and the
said order has not been recalled, cancelled or revoked. Whileso, it is thus not open to
the respondent Board to punish the petitioner twice for the same set of charges as it is
against the doctrine of double jeopardy.
16. In this context, it is relevant to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in D. Narayanan (cited supra), wherein it is held thus:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“25.As a matter of fact, even in the decision relied upon by the counsel for the
State reported AIR 2003 SC 1253 cited supra, the Apex Court, while recognizing
the possibility of application of doctrine of double jeopardy in service jurisprudence,
has held, in the peculiar factual situation in that case, that the causes of action for
two different punishments were distinct and separate.
26. A question may crop up that even after a person is subjected to some
insignificant punishment in a departmental enquiry, he may be imprisoned after
being convicted in a criminal case based on similar set of allegations and, in such
circumstances, whether it would be in the interest of administration to allow such
person to continue in service. We do not think that the State or the department is
remediless in such a situation. If a person, on account of his conviction is
imprisoned and remains absent from service, he can always be penalised for
remaining absent from duty. Even otherwise, a departmental authority or the State
Government for that matter can always review the punishment by following the
procedure contemplated under relevant service rules by altering the initial
punishment to some higher punishment.
27. In the present case, the disciplinary authority himself has imposed the
second punishment on the basis of the very same allegation of temporary
misappropriation. Such order of the disciplinary authority cannot be considered as
an exercise of power of review of punishment, inasmuch as such punishment has
been imposed beyond the period of limitation contemplated under the relevant
service rules.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the subsequent order of
dismissal passed by the very same disciplinary authority. The question as to
whether the initial punishment deserves to be reviewed by any competent authority
is a matter left open, as such a question has not arisen either directly or indirectly
in the present case. No costs.? In view of the above, the impugned order of
dismissal from service cannot be sustained, as admittedly the respondent Board
issued the second charge memo dated 22.04.2006 by repeating the charges
levelled in the first charge memo dated 27.05.2002. Such factum was also fairly
conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent Board during the course of
argument.
17. Now, the only charge left out is charge No. 1 of the second charge memo dated
22.04.2006 i.e., the petitioner impersonated one C. Narayanan and his original name
is Jeeva @ Jeevanandam, son of K. Raman. To substantiate such charge, the petitioner
had produced the documents, such as Voter ID, Adhar Card and Driving License. But,
unfortunately, the Enquiry Officer, without adverting to any one of the documents,
held against the petitioner holding that he has impersonated which is wholly
impermissible in law. It is also further seen that during the enquriy proceedings, the
respondent Board did not examine the officer who conducted the local enquiry and
that the information as to how many persons were examined in the locality is absent
in the enquiry report. Thus, the charge of impersonation foisted against the petitioner
cannot be sustained, because no evidence on this charge has been placed against the
petitioner.
18. Unquestionably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has a
duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the
investigating officer against the delinquent by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, no witness was examined
to find out the veracity of the documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate
that he is S. Narayanan, son of K. Sivaraman. The Enquiry Officer, without following
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
any of the principles adumbrated in service jurisprudence, simply held the charge of
impersonation against the petitioner stood proved, which ultimately ended in passing
the impugned order of dismissal from service by the respondent Board. As a matter of
fact, there was no direct evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer nor any indirect
evidence is placed before me. When the petitioner was charged with serious
allegations of forgery and impersonation without any documents whatsoever, it is not
known as to how the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the present finding, that too
without any direct or indirect evidence. Therefore, the writ Court is entitled to interfere
with the findings of fact. A reference can be had from the Central Bank of India Ltd. v.
Prakash Chand Jain [AIR 1969 SC 983] and Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police
[(1970) 1 SCC 709].
19. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is quashed.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner with all backwages. This Court, while appreciating the efforts of
Mr. P. Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, to assist this Court as well as
the petitioner, hereby directs the legal services authority attached to Madurai Bench of
this Court to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as his legal fee. No Costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

DP Evidence 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DP Evidence 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DP Evidence 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, October 15, 2024

W.P. (MD) No. 10932 of 2013

S. Narayanan v. Superintending Engineer

2016 SCC OnLine Mad 23837

In the High Court of Madras

S. Narayanan .…. Petitioner

Superintending Engineers for production of bogus certificate for qualification,

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.