Karuppiah.M vs. The Deputy Collector/District Manager

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of punishment dated 30.05.2022. The primary reasoning was that the same District Manager, against whom the petitioner had made specific allegations and who had passed the initial order of punishment, conducted the subsequent enquiry and passed the impugned order. This was contrary to the spirit of the Court's previous direction to conduct a domestic enquiry, which implicitly suggested an enquiry by an officer other than the one against whom allegations were made. The Court found this procedural impropriety to be a sufficient ground to allow the petition. The ratio decidendi is that an authority against whom allegations of bias or impropriety have been made should recuse themselves from conducting enquiries or passing orders in the matter, particularly when a higher court has directed a fresh enquiry.

Facts

The petitioner, a Supervisor at TASMAC, was issued a show cause notice for allegedly selling a beer bottle for Rs. 140/- when the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was Rs. 130/-. This was observed during an inspection on 02.12.2020. The District Manager, who conducted the inspection, also passed an initial order of punishment on 04.01.2021, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- plus GST (Rs. 1800/-). This order was challenged by the petitioner and set aside by the High Court on 04.01.2022, with a direction to conduct a domestic enquiry. Subsequently, the same District Manager passed a fresh order of punishment on 30.05.2022, imposing a similar penalty, which is now challenged by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the subsequent order of punishment dated 30.05.2022, passed by the same District Manager who was the subject of allegations by the petitioner in the previous round of litigation, is vitiated by bias and procedural impropriety, especially when the Court had directed a domestic enquiry by other officers? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the District Manager, against whom specific allegations were made, should not have conducted the enquiry or passed the subsequent order. The Court had directed a domestic enquiry, implying it should be conducted by an independent officer. The petitioner also contended that he is a Supervisor and not a Salesman, and responsibility for sales should lie with Salesmen. He alleged his signature was forcibly obtained. Respondent: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent. However, the respondent issued the impugned order.