Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
Dr.N. Periasamy
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government & Others
W.P.No.10177 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on : 28-01-2011
Jurisdiction - Writ of Certiorari - Denova Enquiry - Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 - Rule 24 of TCMPF Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Section 153 of TNCS Act 1983
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Doctor in Veterinary Science, sought writs to quash an order for denova enquiry and suspension, and to direct settlement of terminal benefits. Alleged misconduct involved supply of inferior raw materials. Enquiry officer submitted findings, but no final orders were passed. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the authority to order denova enquiry and suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order for denova enquiry was without jurisdiction, as it was passed by the competent authority on the direction of the State Government without independent consideration. The suspension order was upheld as per Rule 12 of the Rules, pending conclusion of the enquiry.
Issues: Jurisdiction to order denova enquiry and suspension, compliance with rules and regulations, and availability of alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the order for denova enquiry lacked independent consideration and was without legal authority, thus quashing it. The suspension order was upheld as it complied with Rule 12 of the Rules.
Final Decision: The impugned order for denova enquiry was quashed, while the suspension order was upheld. The third respondent was directed to take a final decision on the enquiry proceedings and to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner.
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order vide which the second respondent ordered de- nova enquiry vide letter Ref.No.25315/Pers.IR.3/2005 dated 28.5.2009 and also the consequential order of suspension passed by the second respondent dated 28.5.2009. The prayer is also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits of the petitioner, such as Gratuity, Leave wages etc along with interest.
2. The petitioner's case is that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
3. The facts pleaded for the relief claimed are, that the petitioner is the Doctor in Veterinary Science. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent as Junior Manager (Veterinary) in the year 1977 and by departmental promotion, he reached the stage of Deputy General Manager.
4. The petitioner was to retire on 30.5.2009. The petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 3.12.2005 on the allegation of misconduct. The charges framed against the petitioner was that he had allowed supply of inferior quality of raw materials to cattle field plant, Erode at a higher price, as if the procured raw materials was of standard quality.
5. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 12.05.2006 denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent appointed an enquiry officer to look into the charges vide letter dated 25.8.2006. The enquiry officer started enquiry on 10.10.2006 which continued till 20.01.2007. It is pleaded in the affidavit to writ petition that the petitioner has reasonable grounds to believe that the third respondent dropped the proceedings, as no action was taken on the report of enquiry officer for two years of submission of enquiry report. ( This fact is disputed by the respondents wherein a specific stand has been taken that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him).
6. 4. The case set out by the petitioner further is that he was served with an order dated 28.5.2009 bearing reference No.25315/Pers.IR/3/2005 based on the order of the first respondent ordering denova enquiry. The petitioner was also placed under suspension till finalisation of disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner.
7. The case pleaded by the petitioner in the affidavit is that the enquiry officer had conducted full fledged enquiry and had submitted his finding. It was only the disciplinary authority i.e. the third respondent who could pass final orders, based on the enquiry proceedings and the reply to be submitted by the petitioner, if so required.
8. The petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the first respondent to issue directions as mentioned in the impugned order, on the ground that no power is vested with the first respondent to order de nova enquiry without any valid reason, rather the competent authority dealing with enquiry report also does not have any such authority to order de nova enquiry, only on the ground that the delinquent official is exonerated of the charges by the enquiry officer. The other stand taken by the petitioner is that since the time limit prescribed for finalisation of the enquiry proceedings as per the rule had already expired. The respondents therefore have no jurisdiction to pass orders on the enquiry officer's finding; or order denova enquiry.
9. The grounds on which the relief is claimed are :
(a) That the first respondent has no power to order denova enquiry, when the enquiry was concluded way back in the year 2007. The order is totally without jurisdiction and contrary to rules.
(b)When the enquiry officer has concluded the enquiry, re-enquiry cannot be ordered, by the respondent merely to get a report to suit convenience.
(c) that the first respondent has no power to order re-enquiry or in any case without gi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
