2013 (2) TMI 936 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized work as Invigilator.
2. Prevention of reporting the incident.
3. Procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry.

Summary:

1. Unauthorized Work as Invigilator:
The Appellant, a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), was sanctioned unearned leave from 12.2.1990 to 25.2.1990. During this period, he allegedly worked as an Invigilator at an examination center. The charges included that he "had gone to the examination hall unauthorisedly on the pretext of assisting the Chief Invigilator while he was on Unearned Leave on Private Affairs" and "acted as Invigilator while he was on leave." The Appellant denied these charges, presenting an appointment letter as proof of his authorization.

2. Prevention of Reporting the Incident:
During the examination, six candidates were mistakenly given afternoon question papers in the morning session. The Chief Invigilator, Syed Abdul Kareem, was prevented from reporting the incident by the Appellant, as per the charge. The Chief Invigilator's statements to the Controller of Examinations and the Inspector, Crime Investigation Department, indicated that the Appellant had asked him not to report the mix-up to avoid repercussions on TNPSC staff.

3. Procedural Fairness in the Departmental Inquiry:
The departmental inquiry under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules found the Appellant guilty of the charges. The Appellant contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, as the statements of the Chief Invigilator were not initially provided to him, and his request to cross-examine witnesses was denied. The Enquiry Officer's report relied heavily on the Chief Invigilator's statements without corroborating evidence.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Appellant had no role in handling or distributing the question papers, and the Chief Invigilator had admitted to appointing substitute invigilators, including the Appellant. The Court found that the High Court erred in upholding the punishment as the findings were not supported by tangible evidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of punishment and the appellate order were quashed. The Appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and retiral benefits. The TNPSC was directed to pay the due amounts within four months.