Muthuraman .S v. The Managing Director
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and WMP(MD)Nos.6014, 6015 & 6016 of 2024 S.Muthuraman .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
2. The General Manager (Administration), Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
Page No.1/10
3. The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Trichy Region, Trichy.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent passed in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.AD1/3642/2020 dated 12.06.2023 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.AD2/24686/2023 dated 22.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.AD1/3642/2020 dated 12.06.2023 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd Page No.2/10
respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.AD2/24686/2023 dated 22.02.2024.
2. Heard T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is working as a Watchmen in the Modern Rice Mill(G) which is being run by the third respondent. In the year 2020 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of dereliction of duty. Consequent to that the third respondent issued a charge memo and thereafter reinstated the petitioner into service. All of a sudden the third respondent issued two separate recovery orders to recover Rs.81,655/- and Rs.76,895/- respectively from the petitioner. When the petitioner made a representation to revoke the recovery order, the third respondent abstained himself from recovering the so called loss amount. After the third respondent Page No.3/10
passed the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent. But, the second respondent without considering the appeal, independently rejected the same without application of mind. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer has not stated any reason as to why the explanation given by the petitioner is not accepted and what is the evidence relied on to come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. It is further submitted that even the Disciplinary Authority did not state any reason how he was convinced to accept the enquiry report.
5. The appellate authority also did not consider the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner and has Page No.4/10
mechanically passed an order by confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has been given with the following charges:
Page No.5/10
6. For the above charges, the petitioner had given his explanation and his explanation was not accepted. The petitioner was not provided with any documents relied on by the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion about the charges and it is submitted that the petitioner was not given with the copies of the documents in order to defend his case effectively. Even the enquiry officer's report does not contain the list of witnesses and the examination of witnesses also have not been relied on by the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry. The disciplinary authority has also not reasoned out anything to arrive at a conclusion on accepting the enquiry report and chosen to impose the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and in the order of punishment also there is no consideration of the petitioner's past services and the appellate authority did not consider the above grounds raised by the petitioner Page No.6/10
while passing the confirmation order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.AD1/3642/2020 dated 12.06.2023 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.AD2/24686/2023 dated 22.02.2024 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to reappraise the matter and pass orders afresh, taking into consideration of the above observations made in this petition, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.04.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PJL Page No.7/10
To
1. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
2. The General Manager (Administration), Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
3. The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Trichy Region, Trichy.
Page No.8/10
Page No.9/10
R.N.MANJULA , J.
PJL Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6434 of 2024 and WMP(MD)Nos.6014, 6015 & 6016 of 2024 10.04.2024 Page No.10/10