A.Elumalai v. Managing Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 10.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI W.P.No.418 of 2016 A.Elumalai ... Petitioner Vs
1. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Head Officer, 4th Floor, CMDA Tower, Egmore, Chennai-8
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Salem
3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Tiruvannamalai District ... Respondents 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 third respondent in its Na.Ka.R.V.2/1920/2013, dated 01.11.2014 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in its appeal proceedings Na.Ka.No.8177/2014/A, dated 06.04.2015 and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in his review proceedings in its Na.Ka.No.R-1/10810/2015 dated 28.07.2015 and quash the same and issue a consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ramkumar For Respondents : Mr.M.John Kennedy, 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 3rd 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 3rd respondent and he was posted as a Salesman in Retail Vending shop No.9325. The said shop was inspected by the third respondent and during the course of such inspection as allegedly noticed a defect i.e. the petitioner and others 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 him for for above said charge. The petitioner along with others in the said shop were proceeded with Disciplinary proceedings 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 respondents.
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. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal as well as the Revision but unsuccessful. 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.
to have been committed by him along with the supervisor and his family are dependants 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.M.John Kennedy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/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 at the stage of admission 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 VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
lok To
1. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Head Officer, 4th Floor, CMDA Tower, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Salem.
3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Tiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.M.John Kennady, Advocate Sr.55253 W.P.No.418 of 2016 rsi[co] srg 17/09/2018