Case Note & Summary
The intra-court appeal arose from a writ petition where a single judge of the Madras High Court set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent, a Tahsildar. The respondent, while serving as Tahsildar in Tambaram Taluk, had passed an order on 11.09.2002 for change of revenue register in respect of government land classified as Kazhuveli Poramboke. The government alleged that he had no authority to pass such order and that he had violated standing instructions not to give effect to erroneous orders of Assistant Settlement Officers. A charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 was issued on 02.03.2010 framing three charges of misconduct. The respondent submitted a reply stating that he had acted only upon written instructions from the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration dated 27.06.2002 and the District Revenue Officer dated 10.09.2002, which specifically directed him to carry out the changes in the village and taluk accounts. The enquiry officer, after considering these communications, exonerated him by report dated 02.11.2010, holding all charges not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the enquiry officer, issued a deviation notice, and after obtaining views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on 03.02.2012, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 30.08.2016. The respondent challenged the punishment by way of writ petition. The single judge, finding that the respondent had acted only on the instructions of superior officers, concluded that the charges could not be sustained and set aside the punishment. On appeal, the State contended that the writ court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and that the respondent had no power to deal with government lands and had violated standing instructions. The respondent argued that he was bound to obey the written directions of higher officials and that selectively punishing him while the superiors who issued the instructions were not proceeded against was arbitrary. The Division Bench, after hearing both sides, held that when an employee acts on written instructions of superior authorities, he cannot be held guilty of misconduct. The court found no merit in the appeal and confirmed the writ court's order, dismissing the writ appeal and upholding the quashing of the punishment with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Liability for Obeying Superior's Orders - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 17(b) - When a public servant acts on the basis of written instructions from superior officers, he cannot be held guilty of misconduct for carrying out those instructions, especially when the instructions specifically direct the action in question. The High Court held that the writ court correctly set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement as the respondent Tahsildar had acted on the written directions of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Revenue Officer (Paras 7, 13, 15, 20). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Selective Action - Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 - If the disciplinary authority proceeds only against the subordinate officer who implemented the instructions of higher officials, while leaving out the superior officers who issued the instructions, the action suffers from arbitrariness and is liable to be quashed. The High Court upheld the writ court's decision that such selective punishment cannot be sustained (Paras 14, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitioner's act of passing order for change of register based on written instructions of Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and District Revenue Officer constitutes misconduct warranting compulsory retirement.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The order of the writ court setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement is confirmed. The respondent is entitled to all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Judicial review cannot reappraise evidence if enquiry proper
- employee acting on written instructions of superiors not liable for misconduct
- selective disciplinary action against subordinate while superiors not proceeded against vitiates punishment
- writ court justified in setting aside punishment when charges are baseless.
