← Library
Madras High CourtWP/22902/2013disposed of

A.Chandrasekar, v. The District Manager,

2018-08-10Honourable Mr Justice Satrughana Pujahari3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 10.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI W.P.No.22902 of 2013 A.Chandrasekar ..

Petitioner Vs The District Manager, TASMAC LTD., No.29 & 30, Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur ..

Respondent Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings of the respondent bearing Se.Mu.Ka.No.A2-6612007, dated 07.06.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner as Shop Salesman.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sasindran For Respondent : Mr.P.Arumugarajan, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of constitution of India to challenge the order of his termination in a disciplinary proceedings by the respondent to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. The petitioner prays for quashment of the same and direct reinstatement of him into service with back wages and other attendant benefits. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) under the respondent and he was posted as a Salesman in Retail Vending shop No.8874. The said shop was inspected by the Head Office Flying Squad and during the course of such inspection as allegedly noticed a defect i.e. the petitioner and another were found to be selling less alcohol content bottle. A report was submitted and the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the allegation of

selling brandy with less alcohol content by meddling with the brandy bottle supplied by the respondent and as such brought dis-reputation to the respondent. The petitioner in the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings participated to repel the charge against him to be of any substance. But admittedly on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, taking into consideration the report of the enquiry officer as well as the explanation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer recording the charges to have been proved, imposed a penalty of removal. Therefore, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition, challenging the said order of removal interalia on the ground that the same being perverse and as such, liable to be quashed.

During the course of hearing on admission, it is being submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner does not dispute the finding of misconduct to have been proved against him and only prays this Court to direct the respondent to revisit the punishment of removal by any other punishment, by giving appropriate direction to the respondent, inasmuch as the punishment of removal in the facts and situations and considering the nature of delinquency appears to be shockingly disproportionate, more so, when the same has been passed without taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances that the petitioner is a poor salesman and his family are dependents on him.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that in the event of disciplinary authority revisiting the aforesaid punishment by any other punishment, the petitioner shall also not claim any back wages for the aforesaid period. Futhermore, it is also submitted that this Court in similar circumstances in umpteen number of writ petitions have also directed reinstatement by revisiting the punishment / penalty by any other punishment.

5.

Mr.P.Arumugarajan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/TASMAC does not dispute the fact that in similar facts and situations, this Court in umpteen number of writ petitions have directed to the disciplinary authority to revisit the punishment and reinstate the delinquent salesman into service but without any back wages and hence necessary orders be passed as this Court may deem fit and proper. 6.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and going through the materials on record, especially the submissions made that in similar cases, this Court has directed the Disciplinary

Authority to reconsider the punishment / penalty imposed, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the disciplinary authority to revisit / reconsider the punishment of removal imposed by any other suitable punishment as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and situations within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that in the event of substitution of punishment by any other punishment, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period during which he remains out of duty.

7.

With the aforesaid order, this writ petition stands disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS iv) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok To The District Manager, TASMAC LTD., No.29 & 30, Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur +1cc to Mr.K.Sasindran , Advocate SR.No. 55107 W.P.No.22902 of 2013 ASK(05/10/2018)