Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 431
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN
A.C.Ranganathan - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No:1629 and 2803 of 2000 & WMP.No.4287 of 2000
Decided On : 18 March 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality and lack of jurisdiction of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner after his retirement, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and the applicable rules governing disciplinary actions.
Headnote:
Certiorarified Mandamus - Service Benefits - Madras City Municipal Corporation Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1970 - Rule 56(a) and (c) of Fundamental Rules - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Illegal Disciplinary Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a municipal corporation employee, challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him just prior to his retirement. He was suspended and faced multiple charges, leading to warnings and denial of service benefits. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction due to his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were in violation of principles of natural justice and the applicable rules. It held that the petitioner was entitled to service benefits as if he had retired with effect from the date of his retirement.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, jurisdiction to proceed with disciplinary action after retirement, legality of disciplinary proceedings, entitlement to service benefits
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction due to the petitioner's retirement. It emphasized the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and the applicable rules governing disciplinary actions.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to settle the petitioner's terminal benefits, disburse the pension, and all other benefits as if he had retired with effect from the date of his retirement.
In W.P.No:1629 of 2000 the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai in G.D.C.No.E1/52534/97, dated 29.10.1999 quash the same and direct the respondents to give all consequential service benefits with a further direction to settle pension, gratuity and GPF which has accrued due to the petitioner had he not been illegally dismissed from service with 24% interest per annum within a time that may be stipulated by this court.
2. In W.P.No:2803 of 2000, the very same petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the proceedings of the records relating to the charge memo dated 30.12.1996 made in G.D.C.No.E1/46643/96 issued by the second respondent Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, quash the same and forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memo.
3. Both the writ petitions are taken up with the consent of counsel on either side. Heard Mr.G.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has rendered 36years of service in the second respondent-Corporation and his services have been recognised as best, honest and efficient. The petitioner claim that he was given the maintenance of establishment Section of Buildings Department. During the said period renovation work in the second floor of the Corporation Building was carried out well before the Council Meeting. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 28.4.1997, which was two days just prior to the due date of his retirement. The suspension was on the premise that it was observed that lot of irregularities had taken place while executing the improvement work in the Council Hall of Rippon Buildings. The petitioner was due for retirement on 30.4.1997 and no orders of extension was passed. Nor an order has been passed by the respondents not permitting him to retire on attaining the age of 58 years in terms of Rule 56 (a) and (c.) of Fundamental Rules. Therefore it is to be deemed that the petitioner has retired from service by the end of 30.4.1997 and thereafter the respondents have no right to continue the disciplinary proceedings.
5. On 24.10.1997, the second respondent issued a charge memo clamping as many as 64 charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objections to the charge memo by his explanation dated 5.12.1997 denying each and every imputation. The petitioner persuaded the second respondent to pay subsistence allowance by number of representations but they are of no avail. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3022 of 1999 for a direction to pay subsistence allowance. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the second respondent shall complete the enquiry as early as possible.
6. After a lapse of one and half years the Chief Engineer (General) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and two others. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry submitted his report on 28.12.1998. The petitioner claim that the Enquiry Officer has not reported any adverse findings against him. The enquiry officer seems to have suggested to the second respondent to form a Team of Engineers to check the entire work done in the presence of the petitioner. The second respondent thereafter appointed a Committee of three Engineers. The said Committee also according to the petitioner has not submitted any adverse report against the petitioner. The report was submitted on 10.2.1999. There is no provision to appoint such an expert committee.
7. The petitioner understand that he has been exonerated of all the charges by the enquiry officer as well as by
