Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3410
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
D. Ganesan
Versus
The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Another
W.P.No.18521 of 2004
Decided on : 18-09-2008
For the Petitioner:V. Sanjeevi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Selvanayagam, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of major penalty, such as withholding of increment with cumulative effect, must adhere to the prescribed procedure under the TNCSC Employees Service Regulation, and failure to do so can vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and the imposed punishment.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Disciplinary Proceedings - TNCSC Employees Service Regulation - Chapter V Rule 4 - Major Penalty - Withholding Increment - Cumulative Effect - Violation of Service Regulation - Quashing of Order
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Movement Assistant at a godown, was found involved in the removal and sale of rice bags, leading to disciplinary action and imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground of violation of service regulation of TNCS Service Rules in conducting the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment awarded were vitiated due to the failure to follow the procedure contemplated under TNCSC Employees Service Regulation for awarding major punishment. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to disburse the terminal benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: Violation of service regulation in conducting the enquiry, imposition of punishment without following the prescribed procedure for major penalty, and the inability to order a fresh enquiry due to the petitioner's retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedure for awarding major punishment was not followed, leading to the vitiation of the entire proceedings for violation of the Service regulation. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was quashed due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The respondents were directed to disburse the terminal benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 12.05.2004, confirming the order of the 1st Respondent dated 210. 2003, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.
2.Brief facts which lead to the filing of writ petition are as follows:
.(i) The Petitioner was working as Movement Assistant at Tondiarpet godown in the Respondent Corporation to move the essential commodities to the Corporation retail shops. During the course of surprise inspection on 21.02.1997, checking DVAC officials noticed Sugumar, assistant giving a sum or Rs.1950/-to the Petitioner. Enquiry revealed that the Petitioner and others removed 15 bags of rice and sold to Krishnamoorthy for Rs.6000/- and received amount from the said Krishnamoorthy. The charge against the Petitioner is that from out of this said amount from Krishnamoorthy, petitioner received Rs.1950/-.
.(ii) Based on the confidential report of DVAC three charges have been framed against the Petitioner. Since there was a clerical error in the charge memo A17/18403/99 dated 13.08.1999, the clerical error was corrected and revised charge memo was issued to the Petitioner in charge memo No.A17/18403/99 dated 28.02.2002. Senior Manager Accounts was appointed as enquiry officer by the proceedings dated 21.06.2002. The Petitioner submitted a reply/written explanation to the enquiry officer on 19.07.2002. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dated 011. 2002, holding the charges against the Petitioner proved.
3. The 1st Respondent in his memo Rc.No.A17/10403/99 dated 31.01.2003, calling upon the Petitioner to offer explanation to the findings of the enquiry officer. The Petitioner has submitted his written submission to the 1st Respondent on 15.09.2003 in person. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the 1st Respondent passed the order imposing penalty of withholding increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the same Petitioner has preferred appeal before the 2nd Respondent. By the impugned order dated 20.05.2004, the 2nd Respondent has dismissed the appeal. Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that there was violation of service regulation of TNCS Service Rules in conducting the enquiry. The Respondent assails the impugned order on the ground that the Respondents have failed to consider the explanation of the Petitioner and the order is wholly perverse and un reasonable.
4. The Respondents have filed counter stating that as per rules charges were framed against the Petitioner and after following all procedures disciplinary action against the Petitioner was finalised. The Petitioner has failed to submit the filled in questionnaire form issued along with the charge memo dated 28.02.2002 with the explanation to the Respondents. The Petitioner admitted before DVAC that the amount of Rs.1950/-was received from Sugumar and upon consideration of the materials and admission of the Petitioner impugned order was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.
5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. V. Sanjeevi, has contended that as per regulation of TNCSC, for imposing major penalty the list of witnesses and documents are to be furnished to the delinquents and the mandatory procedure was not followed in the case of Petitioner. Placing reliance upon 1998(3) L.L.N. 326, K.Govindaswamy v. T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd., the learned counsel further submitted that in case of violation of statutory rules, the enquiry proceedings is vitiated.
6. The learned counsel for Respondents Mr. Selvanayagam, has contended that DVAC has noticed grave irregularities and disciplinary proceedings was held in accordance with Rules and after following all procedures and regulation of TNCSC punishment was imposed upon the Petitioner. Learned counsel for Respondents further contended that strict rule of evidence would not appl
