P. Anbalagan vs Distt. Educational Officer And Others
- AIRAIR 1994 SC 1276
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a departmental inquiry has established charges against an employee through the employee's own explanation, which fails to be convincing, and the employee had available means to have taken positive action to exonerate themselves (such as producing the materials in question before the inquiry officer or dispatching them through alternative means) but failed to do so, the dismissal order does not warrant interference on the ground that proper opportunity to meet the charge was not afforded. The punishment in a departmental inquiry, while not warranting interference on the merits where charges are established, may be scaled down from dismissal to removal from service where the employee is young and inexperienced, particularly where the misconduct occurred within the first year of service, such mitigation being a matter of discretion for the appellate authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The appellant on 27-9-88 was appointed as Noon meal Organiser in a Government High School in the State of Tamil Nadu. Within a year of his service he had to face a departmental enquiry, one charge of which related to misappropriation of some clothes meant for school children. The explanation rendered by the appellant did not absolve him of the charge and an Order of punishment of dismissal was passed because the facts constituting the charge were virtually admitted. His appeal to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal met with a failure and this is why he has brought this matter before us in appeal.
3. The contention of Mr. S. Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was not afforded proper opportunity to meet the charge, does not impress us. We have read the explanation of the appellant which does not seem to us to be convincing. If his stance is true that there was no one to take charge of the clothes, which he had under his possession, from him he could easily have despatched them by other means to the authorities concerned. The clothes were few in number being six khaki half pants, two blue half saree and five uniforms. Even if he had failed to despatch then he could have placed these Articles as they were before the Enquiry Officer to absolve him of the charge. In no event, could the appellant hide behind mere words when a positive deed on his behalf by itself would have exonerated him of the charge. The action against the appellant seems to us well deserved requiring no, interference.
4. However, we have questioned the learned Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu appearing to defend this appeal and with his consent record that the punishment of the appellant be scaled down to one of removal without causing any hurdle or impediment for the appellant to seek Government service. The Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu has taken this stance on our pointing out to him that the appellant was a young man and within one year of his service had been visited with such consequences. The possibility cannot be Ruled out that he was inexperienced in handling such matters. Altering the punishment on concession as aforesaid, we dispose of this appeal. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free