Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 178
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN
J. Dhanraj - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board And Ors - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10326 of 1984
Decided On : 09 February 1995
Bigamy is not a misconduct as defined by the Standing Orders governing the petitioner's services, and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations cannot prevail over the provisions of the Standing Orders.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations - Bigamy - Misconduct', 'SUBJECT': 'Disciplinary Proceedings - Standing Orders - Conduct Regulations - Bigamy as Misconduct', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, S.3(2)', 'Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations, Regulation 25', 'Standing Order 30', 'Standing Order 31', 'Standing Order 32']}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Operator in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was served with a charge memo for contracting a second marriage while his first wife was alive and for claiming M.R.I. bills in the name of the second wife. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and a show-cause notice was issued proposing his removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that bigamy is not a misconduct as defined by the Standing Orders governing the petitioner's services and that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations cannot prevail over the provisions of the Standing Orders. The court also held that the petitioner's conduct did not amount to misconduct under the regulations, as it was not specifically enumerated as such in the Standing Orders.
Issues: 1. Whether bigamy is a misconduct as defined by the Standing Orders governing the petitioner's services? 2. Whether the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations can prevail over the provisions of the Standing Orders? 3. Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to misconduct under the regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories (India), Ltd. v. Labour Court, Meerut & Ors. [1984 I L.L.N. 57], which held that acts of misconduct not enumerated in the Standing Orders cannot be considered enough to impose a penalty against a worker governed by the Standing Orders. 2. The court also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S. Alamelu v. Superintending Engineer, South Arcot Electricity System South, Villupuram [1990 II CLR 362], which held that a regulation prohibiting a woman employee from contracting a marriage with a person having a living spouse without obtaining the Board's permission could not be invoked to take disciplinary action, as it was not provided for in the Standing Orders. 3. The court further held that the petitioner's conduct did not amount to misconduct under the regulations, as it was not specifically enumerated as such in the Standing Orders.
Final Decision: The court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
Srinivasan, J.
1. The petitioner is an Assistant Operator, belonging to the regular work establishment category in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He was served with a charge memo on 14 May 1982 by the Superintending Engineer (Operations), Ennore Thermal Power Station, who is the appointing authority that he contracted second marriage, when the first wife was alive and that he claimed M.R.I. bills in the name of second wife. He was also called upon to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He gave his explanation on 9 August 1982 setting out the circumstances under which he happened to live with the woman order than his wife. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him and it has found that he was guilty of bigamy. A show-cause notice, dated 5 August 1983, was issued to him, directing him to show cause as to why he should not be punished by reverting him to the post of "helper" for a period of three years, from the rank of the "Assistant Operator". He submitted his explanation thereto in December 1983. A memo, dated 11 September 1984, was issued by the third respondent that the show-cause notice issued earlier in 5 August 1983 was cancelled, but on the same day, another memo was issued by the third respondent, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of removal from service should not imposed on him. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and to quash the same.
2. The contention of the petitioner in short is that the entire disciplinary proceeding is unsustainable in view of the fact that bigamy is not a misconduct, as defined by the Standing Orders, governing his services. It is also contended that if the management wants to enforce some other condition, which is found in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations, it should have taken appropriate proceeding for modifying the standing orders, as prescribed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.3. Standing Order 30 sets out the acts and the omissions constituting misconduct. There is a list of 36 such acts and omissions. Standing Order 31 provides for punishment for misconduct and Standing Order 32 provides for the procedure to be followed in disciplinary cases.
4. Action has been taken against the petitioner in this case on the ground that he has violated regulation 25 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations, which reads thus:
"25. Bigamous marriage:
(i) No employee shall, enter into or contract a marriage with a person having a spouse living;
(ii) no employee having a spouse living shall enter into or contract, a marriage with any person;
Provided that the Board may permit an employee to enter into, or contract, any such marriage, as is referred to in Cl. (i) or Cl. (ii) if it is satisfied that:
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such employee and the other party to the marriage; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing."
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that regulation 25 of the Regulations cannot prevail over the provisions of the Standing Orders. According to him as bigamy is not one of the acts of misconduct, as contemplated by the Standing Order, no disciplinary action can be initiated against him as per the regulation 25. Our attention is drawn to regulation 30, which is in the following terms:
"In respect of matters in these regulations for which there is provisions also in the Standing Orders for the employees of the Board framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the provisions in the Standing Orders shall prevail in regard to the employees governed by the Standing Orders."
According to the learned counsel, the matter of acts and omissions which would amount to misconduct is provided in Standing Order 30. In this co
