- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of T.N And Others v. M. Natarajan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents, police personnel, were accused of misbehaving with two women, outraging their modesty, and assaulting two intervening men on 10-02-1987 at approximately 02:00 hours. Departmental proceedings and a parallel criminal case were initiated. Despite multiple opportunities, the respondents refused to participate in the departmental enquiry, insisting that it be postponed until the criminal case concluded. The Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, examined prosecution witnesses, and recommended the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.
The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice proposing a major penalty. Rejecting the respondents’ request for a fresh enquiry and cross-examination (made after the criminal case had been withdrawn), the authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. The respondents challenged this before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which allowed their Original Applications (OA Nos. 3804 & 3805 of 1991) on the ground that principles of natural justice were violated. The present appeals arise from that tribunal decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the departmental enquiry suffered from procedural irregularities or violation of natural justice warranting interference with the disciplinary authority’s decision.
- What constitutes an appropriate penalty in light of the established misconduct and the Enquiry Officer’s recommendations.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the tribunal’s own factual findings, which confirmed:
- The respondents were repeatedly asked to appear and participate in the enquiry.
- They willfully declined to do so, even after being afforded opportunities to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or produce defence evidence.
- The Enquiry Officer’s conduct—continuing with the enquiry during pendency of the criminal proceedings—was consistent with the settled principle that departmental and criminal proceedings may run concurrently.
Given these facts, the Court held that no procedural illegality or breach of natural justice occurred. It rejected the tribunal’s conclusion that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the evidence appropriately. However, acknowledging that the Enquiry Officer himself recommended a lesser penalty, the Court assessed proportionality of punishment. Concluding that removal from service was excessive but some deterrent sanction was warranted, it opted for a slightly enhanced penalty over that recommended, i.e., stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.
Holding and Implications
The appeals were allowed. The order of removal from service was set aside. The disciplinary authority was directed to impose the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The respondents were denied back wages.
Implications: The decision reinstates the respondents in service subject to a significant financial penalty and clarifies that refusal to participate in disciplinary proceedings does not render such proceedings procedurally invalid. No new legal precedent was expressly established beyond applying settled principles on simultaneous departmental and criminal processes and proportionality of punishment.
Order
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 30-4-1996 in OAs Nos. 3804 of 1991 and 3805 of 1991.
3. The admitted facts are that on 10-2-1987, the respondents misbehaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them into the lock-up in the early hours, i.e, at 02.00 hours. When two persons intervened, they were beaten by them. As a consequence, an enquiry was held and a criminal case was also instituted against the respondents. When they were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, they failed to appear in spite of several opportunities given to them. As a result, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to record the findings and recommend imposition of the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. After the receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority had issued notices to the respondents as to why major penalty should not be given to the respondents. The respondents asked for opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and sought fresh enquiry on the ground that by that date the criminal case filed against the respondents was withdrawn. The competent authority declined to accede to the request and imposed the punishment of removal from service. Feeling aggrieved, they filed OAs in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the OAs on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not consider the evidence to justify the finding of proof of charges and violated the principles of natural justice. We find that the Tribunal was not justified in reaching the conclusion for the reason that the Tribunal itself has categorically recorded findings at pp. 8-10 as under:
“The applicants were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, but, they wrote to him saying that since the criminal case was proceeding against them in a criminal court they would suggest that the departmental proceedings might be postponed till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was right in holding the view that there was no bar for departmental proceedings to go while the criminal proceedings were being conducted at the appropriate forum. The applicants had chosen not to participate in the departmental proceedings because of the reason that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings should not go simultaneously. Though ignorance of law is not an excuse, the Enquiry Officer should have taken some steps to convince the applicants of the settled principle of law that both the criminal and departmental proceedings could go simultaneously and advised them to participate in the enquiry. But the applicants did not yield and only after the criminal case was withdrawn against them, they chose to appear before the authorities concerned for the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer did not wait for the stage to materialise and he passed his ex parte findings. The applicants refused to appear for the oral enquiry in spite of several opportunities given to them. Therefore, it was decided to examine the prosecution witnesses in the absence of the applicants. After the examination of PWs the applicants were directed to appear to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses if they so desired. Even then they did not appear. Therefore, the enquiry was treated as closed after examining the prosecution witnesses and a finding was arrived at based on the materials available with the prosecution side. The applicants were even asked to submit their list of witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses, but they did not submit the same and they were also asked to submit their written statement of defence if they desired, but they did not do that also. Finally, the applicants wrote saying that they submitted their representation to the Superintendent of Police and he replied and after receiving the reply from the Superintendent of Police, a representation for the change of Enquiry Officer was turned down by the Superintendent of Police. Finally, enquiry was closed and ex parte minute was prepared. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer's report in both the cases, the Superintendent of Police awarded the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect to the applicant in OA No. 3804 of 1991 and removed the applicant in OA No. 3805 of 1991 from service.”
4. In view of these findings, we think that no procedural illegalities were committed in conducting the enquiry. The question is: What punishment should be awarded to the respondents? The Enquiry Officer himself has recommended to impose penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. We find that the Enquiry Officer was justified. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the removal from service. Instead, the disciplinary authority is directed to impose the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. The respondents are not entitled to any back wages.
Alert