THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MADRAS AND ANR. versus F.X. FERNANDO

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 15-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. MOHAN, FAIZAN UDDIN

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, 
A 
MADRAS AND ANR. 
v. 
F.X. FERNANDO 
FEBRUARY 15, 1994 
B 
(M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J., S. MOHAN AND 
FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
,,,-
Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 
Rules 12 & 17(b )-Proceedings under Rule 17(b) initiated by the appellant c 
as Head of Department-Power assumed under amended Rule 12--Failure 
of Tribunal to take note of the said amendment effect of-Held proceedings 
not vitiated. 
Delay in submitting report by an authority-Consequential delay in 
D 
issuing of charge memo-Different authorities involved-Authority initiating 
proceedings not to be faulted. 
~ 
The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Depa~ent received 
certain complaints against the Respondent alleging some irregularities 
committed by the respondent in the capacity of Joint Registrar/Special E 
Officer or a Cooperative whole sale store. On receipt or the said com-
plaints, the Director, Vigilance Department approached the appellant for 
inquiry. The appellant furnished all the relevant material to the Vigilance 
Department and requested them to complete the enquiry by 31.12.1987. 
However, the enquiry could not be completed within that time and before 
-r 
the report or the said enquiry could be submitted, the State Government F 
amended Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classiftcation, Control and 
appeal) Rules and inserted sub- Rule(2) therein. By virtue of the said 
amendment, the power to impose minor penalties came to be conferred on 
. ,. 
the Heads of the. Departments also . 
On receipt of the report, the State Government directed the appel- G 
lant to take disciplinary action against the respondent. Accr,rdingly, the 
appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, asking 
-( 
him to appear before an enquiry officer. The respondent, initially par-
ticipated in the proceeding but later on, represented to the appellant that 
the enquiry officer was biased. The appellant rejected the representations H 
959 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
and directed him to appear before the enquiry officer. The Respondent 
approached the Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order of the 
appellant requiring him to appear before the enquiry officer. The Tribunal 
set aside the order impugn~d before it and overlooking the amendment in 
Rule 12, took the view that the proceedings under Rule 17(b) could be 
B initiated only by a person empowered to impose minor penalties specified 
in that Rule, and that since the appellant was not empowered to do so, he 
was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respon-
dent. The Tribunal also found that there was a long delay in initiating 
"!' 
departmental proceedings. 
~ 
c 
The appellant in its appeal to this Court challenged the correctness 
of the aforesaid finding on the ground that the Tribunal had completely 
ignored G.O.Ms. 185 dated 17.3.8& by which the Government had delegated 
the power to impose minor penalties to the Head of Departments and that 
the Government itself, by a subsequent G.O.Ms. 371 dated 20.12.1988, had 
D 
directed the appellant to frame charges against the respondent and initiate 
·' 
enquiry. 
..It-
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant is not 
E empowered even to impose the minor penalties and therefore initiation of 
disciplinary proceedhtg by him by issue of a charge memo and proc:.eeding 
further by appointment of Enquiry Officer is beyond his powers and 
therefore on this ground alone the pi:oceedings have to be set aside, is 
clearly wrong since it has not taken note of the amendment made to Tamil 
Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules amending 
~ 
F 
Rule 12 whereunder the Heads of the Departments like the appellant are 
empowered to impose minor penalties. Moreover, the appellant did not 
initiate the disciplinary action on his own. The State Government directed 
the appellant to take disciplinary action against the respondent. Accord-
i~gly he issued the charge memo. [963-C·E] 
,,... 
G 
P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and-Auditor General, A.I.R. (1993) 
S.C. 1321, referred to. 
~ 
2. The rmding that there is long delay in initiating of departmental 
proceedings cannot be supported because in this case the Directorate of 
H Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had not been prompt. Therefore, the appel-
, ' 
\ f 
REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES v. F.X. FERNANDO

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.