@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.@mdashChallenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21-1-2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in
short ''the Tribunal'') by which the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner herein and upheld the order passed by the
first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service.
2. Facts, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner, a Warden in the Prison Service, was served with a charge memo dated 29-3-2000 for certain
alleged misconducts. In the departmental enquiry, all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The first respondent by his order
dated 2-11-2000 dismissed the petitioner from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an original application before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application holding that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was legal and proper.
3. learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of
natural justice apart from infringement of the rights conferred under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. learned Counsel further submitted that
the second respondent was through out exhibiting inimical attitude towards the petitioner. The second respondent has framed so many false
charges against the petitioner and issued orders without conducting any proper enquiry. The second respondent, in his capacity as the Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons-first respondent, issued the impugned charge memo dated 29-3-2000. The first respondent appointed the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai as enquiry officer. In the enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and he was
not allowed to peruse the documents relied on by the enquiry officer. No witnesses have been examined in the enquiry though the petitioner had
furnished the list of witnesses to be examined. learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming that petitioner had made the alleged complaints
against the first respondent, the charged levelled against the petitioner were true, since the alleged allegations are with respect to the conduct and
functioning of the first respondent, the initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner should have been by the officer higher in rank to
the first respondent, but in the present case the first respondent himself had taken the task of initiating the departmental enquiry and appointed the
enquiry officer of his choice, who acted as per the directions of the first respondent. By this, the first respondent himself has acted as Judge in his
own cause. learned Counsel submitted that the proper course would have been that the matter should have been referred to the Inspector General
of Prisons for further action against the petitioner. It was further submitted that even though the petitioner had sought for eighteen documents
inclusive of the report given by the Forensic Expert and had also sought to examine nine witnesses including the Forensic Expert, the enquiry officer
deliberately denied those documents and also refused to summon the Forensic Expert for cross-examination. The copy of the report submitted by
the Forensic Expert was not provided to the petitioner. The punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charges
levelled against the petitioner. In short, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that whole enquiry was tainted with bias and mala
fide attitude of the second respondent and that there was no enquiry at all in the eye of law.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that several anonymous letters were addressed to the higher officials of the Prison
Department as well as to the Government making allegations of corruption against the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range,
Madurai. To find out the person who authored such letters, the registered post covers and the contents of the letters were analysed with the
activities of some of the wardens working in the Central Prison, Madurai and the Sub Jails under its control. Analysis of the words used in the
letters and the way of writing coincided with the way of words written and the words often used by the applicant and hence, the Director of
Forensic Department, Chennai was requested to examine the false baseless allegation letters, with some of the applications submitted in the office
by the applicant to ascertain whether such letters were written by the applicant or not. In the report received from the Director of Forensic
Sciences Department it is stated that the documents sent by the respondents were examined carefully and the writings have all been written by one
and the same person. The respondent department, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who has written the anonymous
letter. learned Counsel further submitted that the past record of the petitioner is not clean and from 1989 to 1999 he has suffered as many as eight
punishments, that he was suspended for a period of 224 days and through his service he has availed 1417 days holidays on various grounds,
including the period of suspension. When the petitioner was transferred to Sub Jail, Vedasandur on disciplinary grounds on the recommendation of
the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, the petitioner attempted to stall the transfer order and even after joining the transferred place, he
made all attempts to come back to his original place. Since the appellant was transferred on disciplinary grounds, his requests were not complied
with. In the above circumstances, it was evident that writing of anonymous false and baseless petitions by the petitioner was done with the only
intention of threatening the superior officers who have refused the unlawful requests of the petitioner and taken action against the petitioner for his
unlawful and illegal activities. The petitioner also threatened to commit self-immolation to prevent the superior officers from taking any action
against him. Hence, disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner and on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the
charges framed against the petitioner were proved without any doubt, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 2-11-2000 passed
by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai. It was submitted that the enquiry officer acted independently and
impartially and had never acted to the tunes of the respondent, as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry officer
and made all attempts to avoid the enquiry. The petitioner was all reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner was working as last
grade servant in the department and it was not for him to point the irregularities or illegal or improper acts, even assuming such activities did occur,
about the administration. The petitioner was always in the habit of making anonymous letters containing false and baseless allegations against the
superior officers. learned Counsel submitted that the enquiry officer acted on his own without any bias and without any interference from the
respondents, and conducted the enquiry and only on the facts of the records available passed an ex parte report after following all the procedures
and guidelines as per the relevant rules. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case and the petitioner without using the
opportunities, avoided the enquiry. Since the petitioner has failed to attend the enquiry, the question of examination of witnesses does not arise.
Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 were fully justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and the Tribunal
committed no error in confirming the order passed by the respondents.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials made available on record.
6. It is evident from the records that an anonymous letter dated 9-7-1999 by registered post was received by the respondent Department alleging
corruption and misconduct against the second respondent officer. Another similar letter dated 9-11-1999 was also received by the respondent
Department containing the very same allegations against the very same respondent officer. To find found the author of such letters, as per the
directions of the Inspector General of Prisons, the registered post covers and the contents of the letters were compared with the writings of some
of the wardens working in the Central Prison, Madurai and the Sub Jails under its control in which the writings of the petitioner and the writings
appeared on the registered letters appeared to be similar and therefore, those materials were sent to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai to
ascertain whether the writings are of one and the same person. In the report submitted by the Director of Forensic Sciences Department it was
stated that the writings have all been written by one and the same person. The respondent authorities therefore concluded that it was the petitioner
who wrote such anonymous letters against the superior officers of the Department. Therefore, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner
under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The Superintendent, Central Prison of Palayamkottai was
appointed as the enquiry officer. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled
against him, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 2-11-2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai
Range, Madurai. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he was innocent and that he had not authored such anonymous
letters as alleged by the respondent prison authorities. It was also the claim of the petitioner that he was victimized due the personal animosity and
ill-will of the second respondent against him. The petitioner also alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper and in fact there was no enquiry at
all as no opportunity was given to him to defend his case in a proper and effective manner.
7. From the above it is clear that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was for the reason that he has written several
anonymous letters containing allegations against the superior officers of the prison Department. This was done after collecting evidence behind the
back of the petitioner and after obtaining the report from the Forensic Department. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that there was
animosity between the petitioner and the respondent prison authorities is proved. Further, as seen from the enquiry report on more than one
occasion when the petitioner had sought for copies of certain documents and perusal of certain document, that was denied to him. From the report
of the enquiry officer, it is seen that the petitioner had sought for the copies of eighteen documents including viz. letter containing the report of the
Commissioner of Police, Madurai dated 4-12-1999, copy of the signatures, copy of the speciment signatures, etc. and it was replied by the
respondent authorities that while copies of certain documents will not be supplied to him, the petitioner may peruse certain documents at the time of
enquiry. In fact, petitioner was not given copy of even a single document which he had sought for. Therefore, it is evident from the above that no
fair procedure was followed and no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case in a proper and effective manner.
Another circumstance is that though the petitioner sought for cross-examination of certain witnesses, he was denied that opportunity. It is stated in
the enquiry report that the persons required by the petitioner for cross-examination cannot be called for since they are considered unnecessary to
the enquiry. It is also pertinent to note that in his letter dated 12-4-2000 the petitioner has denied all the charges levelled against him and also
stated that such charges were framed on the basis of bias, dislike, vengeance, etc.
8. In the above circumstances, when the respondent prison authorities wanted to zero in on the author of the anonymous letters and for that
purpose when they discretely collected sample writings of the wardens working in the prisons matching with the writings appearing on the
registered covers for the purpose of sending them to Forensic Department to get the report and on such collection, when they entertained the
suspicion that it could be the petitioner who authored such letters, we are of the view that the respondent prison authorities should have informed
the petitioner about the doubt entertained by them and should have taken sample writings of the petitioner by putting him on caution that such
sample writings are taken for the purpose of getting report from the Forensic Department to find out the author of the anonymous letters. That was
not done in this case. On the other hand, evidence was collected behind the back of the petitioner and the same was used for the purpose of
initiating the disciplinary action against him. Further more, when the petitioner demanded the copies of the documents relating to the report of the
Forensic Department, the same were not furnished to him. So also, the request of the petitioner to cross-examine the expert was not entertained by
the enquiry officer. Secondly, when the petitioner had made the specific allegation of bias, prejudice, ill-will against the second respondent, the
second respondent should have referred the matter to some other authority of his equal rank or even to his higher authorities for initiating
appropriate action against the petitioner especially so, when the complaints contained in the anonymous letters alleged to have been sent by the
petitioner were relating to the conduct of the second respondent. Instead, the second respondent himself has directed disciplinary action against the
petitioner and also appointed an enquiry officer of his choice has come under the cloud of bias, prejudice, ill-will, aniomisity, as alleged by the
petitioner and by doing so he acted as judge in his own cause. Further, in the present case the appointing authority was appointed as the enquiry
officer and on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, punishment was imposed on the petitioner by the Vice President of Prisons
Department, Madurai, who is the appellate authority and, therefore, the petitioner has lost the chance of making an appeal. In 2001 (2) AWC
1293 (SC) , the Supreme Court held that the power to impose punishment should not be exercisable by the appellate authority if it results in denial
of right of appeal. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Lachhman Dass Gupta and Anr. 2002 [4] SLR 143, the Supreme Court held that if
the documents relied upon by the department in establishing the charge have not been given to the delinquent, the conclusion is irresistible that the
delinquent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding and, therefore, the order of punishment of termination is
liable to be set aside.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited supra, we are of the considered
view that the order dated 2-11-2000 passed by the first respondent imposing the punishment of dismissal from service is illegal and unsustainable
in law. The Tribunal completely went wrong in confirming the order of punishment. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 2-11-2000 passed by
the first respondent and also the impugned order dated 21-1-2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1655 of 2003 confirming the same.
10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents concerned are directed to reinstate the petitioner
in service forthwith with all service and other attendant benefits, including seniority, etc.