Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 687
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & M.M. SUNDRESH
S.M. Lawrence
Versus
Tamil Nadu Ware Housing Corporation Represented by its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Chennai
W.A.No.1173 of 2000
Decided On :19-02-2010
For the Appellant:A. Kothandaraman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.A. Hafiz, Advocate.
The Court's jurisdiction in a Writ Petition is limited, and it can only correct errors of law, especially when the disciplinary and appellate authorities have based their conclusions on sufficient evidence.
Headnote:
Dismissal from Service - Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations - Regulation 14(2) - Charges of misuse of official power and receipt of illegal gratification - Summary of Acts and Sections: Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations, 1965 - Regulation 14(2)
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, a Regional Manager, was dismissed from service by the Respondent Corporation based on charges of misuse of official power and receipt of illegal gratification. The Appellant challenged the dismissal order in a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the single Judge, leading to this Writ Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority arrived at the conclusion based on sufficient evidence, and the Court's jurisdiction was limited to correcting errors of law. The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of opportunity given to the Appellant, non-issuance of a second show cause notice, and the impact of non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report on the Appellant's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report would not automatically invalidate the proceedings unless the Appellant could prove prejudice and miscarriage of justice. The Court also found that non-issuance of a second show cause notice did not violate principles of natural justice as per the applicable regulations.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
R. Banumathi, J.
This Writ Appeal arises out of order in W.P.No.6572 of 1991 dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant and declining to quash the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service.
2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition and Appeal are as follows:
(i) The Appellant joined the Respondent Management as Warehouse Manager Grade I on 6.12.1964. He was promoted as Regional Manager with effect from 4.9.1982. When he was working as Regional Manager at Tiruchi, he was served with a charge memo dated 21.7.1988. In the said memo, 16 specific charges were framed under Regulation 14(2) of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations, 1965 for various irregularities committed by the Appellant relating to the misuse of his official power and receipt of illegal gratification. The additional Charge No.17 was also framed against the petitioner for abusing his powers to draw without confirmation to the financial discipline. Based on the report of Vigilance Officer -one Kadirvelu, the Appellant was also subsequently placed under suspension by an order dated 19.8.1988. As against the said Order, the Appellant filed suit before Sub-Court, Tiruchy and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.12.1988. On representation by the Appellant, the Management cancelled the suspension order and reinstated him in service, pending disposal of the disciplinary action already taken against him. Appellant was furnished with copies of the reference, which form the basis of the charges on 11.7.1989. The Appellant requested for copies of the report of the Vigilance Officer and sought one month time to submit his explanation. Again, by letter dated 28.8.1989, the Appellant requested for copies of some other documents. Even though Appellant asked about the details of the documents, he did not file any reply.
(ii) On 22.2.1990, one Mr.Parthasarathy, Assistant Manager -Technical was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the charges framed against the Appellant and to file a report. The Appellant was directed to submit his explanation before the Enquiry Officer by letter dated 30.6.1990. Till then, Appellant did not choose to offer any explanation to the charge memo dated 21.7.1988. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and after enquiry was over, he submitted his report on 23.8.1990. On consideration of the enquiry report and other materials as well as the statement by the Appellant before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report that out of 17 Charges framed, Charge Nos.1(iv) and 7 were not pressed, whereas the disciplinary authority held that those charges were also proved. Likewise, the Enquiry Officer found that Charge Nos.1(iii), 1(v) and 16 were not proved, whereas the disciplinary authority held that those charges were also proved. Report of Enquiry Officer was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant was dismissed from service of Respondent Corporation. The Appellant filed an Appeal before Executive Committee of Respondent Corporation on 13.11.1990. After consideration of the representation in the Appeal Memorandum, the Executive Committee dismissed the Appeal on 6.12.1990 confirming dismissal order by holding that the charges have been proved and the Appellant deserves to be dismissed. The dismissal order was challenged in W.P.No.6572 of 1991. Holding that on the basis of sufficient evidence the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have arrived at the conclusion and that Court cannot embark upon scrutiny and circumstances and reassess the same, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for Appellant Mr.A.Kothandaraman firstly contended that proper opportunity was not given to the Appellant and Appellants request for examination of his defence witnesses was refused. It was also contended that the Appellant was not given suffici
