THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus M. NATARAJAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 07-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
v. 
M. NATARAJAN AND ANR. 
JULY 7, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Rem ova~ from service-Police personnel-Departmental enquiry for 
C misconduct-Criminal case also filed but withdrawn later-Failure to appear 
before the Enquiry Officer, who had passed exp a rte report recommending 
stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect-When Disciplinary Authority 
gave notice for imposing major penalty, the employees asking for opportunity 
to cross-examine witnesses and sought fresh enquiry on the ground that the 
criminal case against them had been withdrawn-Request declined and 
D punishment of removal from service impose~Tribunal setting aside the 
order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice-On appeal held, 
no illegality committed in conducting the enquiry-Report of the Enquiry 
Officer recommending stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect jus-
tifie~rder of removal from service set aside-lnstead disciplinary authority 
E directed to impose punishment of stoppage of 4 increments with cumulative 
effect. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4611-12 
of 1997. 
p 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.96 of the Tamil Nadu 
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No. 3804 and 3805 of 1991. 
A. Mariarputham for the Appellants. 
S. Nandakumar and L.K. Pandey for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and common 
H order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 
462 
STATEv. M.NATARAJAN 
463 
30.4.1996 in OA Nos. 3804/91 and 3805/91. 
The admitted facts are that on 10.2.1987, the respondents mis-
behaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them into 
A 
the lock up in the earlier hours, i.e., at 0200 hours. When two persons 
intervened, they were beaten by them. As a consequence, an enquiry was B 
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 C 
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 O.As. in the Tribunal. D 
The Tribunal allowed the O.As. 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 pages 8-10 as E 
under: 
"The applicants were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, 
but, they wrote them 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 
F 
not to participate in the departmental proc.eedings because of the G 
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 simul-
taneously and advised them to participate in the enquiry. But the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
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 Off

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