G.Ramesh Kumar v. The Managing Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.No.5755 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 G.Ramesh Kumar
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
2.The General Manager (Admn.), Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned proceedings in order No.AD2/92962/2012, dated 02.12.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondents: Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein, while working as a Junior Assistant in the respondent-Corporation, was levelled with charges that he had fabricated the official gazette to the effect that he had passed in the TNPSC District Manual Test. Based on the levelled charges, an enquiry came to be conducted and through an enquiry report dated 29.06.2012, the charges were held to be proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority, namely the second respondent herein, had imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on 16.11.2012. The appeal against the
order of dismissal was dismissed by the first respondent herein on 02.12.2013. These orders are put under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the charges were levelled against the petitioner, it did not contain the list of witnesses or the list of documents on which the respondents intend to rely upon, which is contrary to the regulations under Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees' Service Regulations, 1989. It is also his further submission that when the enquiry was conducted, the witnesses were not examined in his presence and that he was not provided an opportunity to cross examine these witnesses.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit, as well as the impugned orders, and submitted that since the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature, the punishment of dismissal from service was properly imposed.
5. Regulation 4 under Chapter V of the respondentCorporation Service Regulations reads as follows:- "4. a) The immediate superior officer as well as higher authorities as per Regulation 2, may either suo moto or on receipt of report as per explanation under that Regulation or as indicated in Regulation 3 shall issue a memo recording the basis of charge, quoting the relevant rules or instructions omitted to be followed, the consequent result of such omission with specific charges suitably framed and the delinquent should be informed of the list of documents relied upon as the basis of charge, the list of witnesses whose versions also form the basis of the charge.
The delinquents should then be required to furnish the list of witnesses if any on his defence within a reasonable time failing which the presumption would be that he has no witnesses on his defence. The immediate supervisory officer as well as higher authorities are competent to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct an objective enquiry into the charges in the present of the delinquent who should have been given due notice therefor. As the enquiry the documents relied upon in the charge memo should be made available to the delinquent for perusal. The delinquents may also be permitted to peruse any other record of the Corporation that are relevant to the charges, if he/she so desires.
desired to be perused, are considered to be not relevant to the charges, the Enquiry Officer shall record so in his findings. So also the witnesses whose versions from the basis of the charges should be examined providing opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine. Thereon the witnesses produced by the delinquent should be examined with due relevance to the charges. The delinquent may also be permitted to file his Written Statement."
6. As per the aforesaid regulation, when the charges are framed, there is a duty cast on the respondents to provide the delinquent with the list of witnesses and list of documents on which they intend to rely upon during the course of enquiry. Likewise, when such an enquiry is conducted, the delinquent requires to be given due opportunity during the course of examination, as well as provide him an opportunity to witness the chief examination of the management witnesses, as well as an opportunity to him to cross examine them.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner has specifically raised a ground that all these procedures were not followed and that apart from failing to give the list of witnesses and documentary evidences, he was also not given opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses. This aspect has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit.
8. While that being so, the entire enquiry itself is vitiated and hence, the consequential punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained. However, since this Court has found that the action initiated by the respondents is not in accordance with the service regulations, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with the Employees' Service Regulations, 1989. In view of such remittance of the matter back to the second respondent, the impugned punishment, as well as the order-in-appeal, confirming the punishment, cannot be sustained.
9. In the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated 02.12.2013 is quashed. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the second respondent herein. In case the second respondent intend to proceed with the domestic enquiry against the petitioner, liberty is hereby granted to him to conduct a fresh enquiry, based on the original charge memo dated 06.08.2011. If required, the second respondent is at liberty to appoint a new Enquiry Officer. The second respondent shall ensure that the Enquiry Officer extends due opportunities to the petitioner during the course of enquiry in accordance with the procedures contemplated under Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Supplies Corporation Employees' Service Regulations, 1989. The second respondent shall endeavour to complete the entire enquiry proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
2.The General Manager (Admn.), Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
+1cc to Mr.G.Rajan, Advocate, S.R.No.24838 W.P.No.5755 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 GP(CO) SB(21/04/2022)