Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4012
Madras High Court
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
K. Rajakumaran
Versus
The Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Nagercoil & Others
W.P.(MD)Nos.8439 of 2010 and 8440 of 2010
Decided On : 03-10-2012
For the Petitioner:T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Pala. Ramasamy, Advocate.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a driver in Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil, challenged the charge memorandum issued against him for alleged involvement in cutting and transporting teak wood without permission from the Forest Department and for refusing to receive the order of suspension. He also sought legal assistance during the departmental enquiry. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that: 1. The petitioner had no vested or absolute right to seek legal assistance in the departmental enquiry in the absence of any rule or regulation providing for the same. 2. The appointment of a law officer as the enquiry officer was not contrary to the service rules, which only prohibited the appointment of an outsider as an enquiry officer. 3. The petitioner's contention that his defence would be exposed in the disciplinary proceedings due to the pendency of a criminal case was no longer valid as the criminal case had ended in conviction. 4. The charge memorandum could not be quashed at the threshold, and the respondents were directed to proceed with the enquiry further in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver in Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil, was issued a charge memorandum for alleged involvement in cutting and transporting teak wood without permission from the Forest Department and for refusing to receive the order of suspension. He also sought legal assistance during the departmental enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that: 1. The petitioner had no vested or absolute right to seek legal assistance in the departmental enquiry in the absence of any rule or regulation providing for the same. 2. The appointment of a law officer as the enquiry officer was not contrary to the service rules, which only prohibited the appointment of an outsider as an enquiry officer. 3. The petitioner's contention that his defence would be exposed in the disciplinary proceedings due to the pendency of a criminal case was no longer valid as the criminal case had ended in conviction. 4. The charge memorandum could not be quashed at the threshold, and the respondents were directed to proceed with the enquiry further in accordance with law.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had a vested or absolute right to seek legal assistance in the departmental enquiry. 2. Whether the appointment of a law officer as the enquiry officer was contrary to the service rules. 3. Whether the petitioner's contention that his defence would be exposed in the disciplinary proceedings due to the pendency of a criminal case was valid. 4. Whether the charge memorandum could be quashed at the threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In the absence of any rule or regulation providing for legal assistance in departmental enquiries, the petitioner had no vested or absolute right to seek such assistance. 2. The appointment of a law officer as the enquiry officer was not contrary to the service rules, which only prohibited the appointment of an outsider as an enquiry officer. 3. The petitioner's contention that his defence would be exposed in the disciplinary proceedings due to the pendency of a criminal case was no longer valid as the criminal case had ended in conviction. 4. The charge memorandum could not be quashed at the threshold, and the respondents were directed to proceed with the enquiry further in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry further in accordance with law.
Petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the charge memorandum in Na.Ka.No.Pa2/12516/03, dated 28.04.2006, issued by the Joint Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Vadasery, Nagercoil, the second respondent herein, as well as another order in Na.Ka.No.Pa2/12516/03, dated 16.06.2010, rejecting the request of the petitioner for legal assistance.
2. As both the Writ Petitions pertain to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, they are taken up together and a Common Order is being passed.
3. Facts of the case, as stated in the supporting affidavit, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is a Driver in Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil. A case in Crime No.160 of 2003 has been registered against him alleging that he was involved in cutting and transporting Teak Wood, without permission from the Forest Department. Vide order dated 30.09.2003, the General Manager, Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil, suspended the petitioner from service. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.09.2004, the petitioner was reinstated in service. On 28.04.2006, two charges have been framed against the petitioner by the second respondent, which are as follows:-
"(i) He was involved in cutting and transporting Teak Wood without permission from the Forest Department
(ii)He refused to receive the order of suspension and left Headquarters without prior permission."
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on receipt of the said charge memorandum, he made a representation dated 16.05.2006 to the Joint Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil, the second respondent herein, to provide him all the supporting documents mentioned in annexure III of the charge memorandum as well as the statements of witnesses mentioned in annexure IV. In spite of his request, the said documents were not furnished to him.
5. The petitioner has further submitted that one Mr. M. Sundarakumar, Vigilance Officer, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, by proceedings dated 23.05.2006. But, he did not conduct any enquiry. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 29.11.2006, one Mr. R. Diraviam, Vigilance Officer in charge, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and he also did not conduct any enquiry. Subsequently, Mr. P. Vijayakumar, Law Officer of Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, the third respondent herein, has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer, by proceedings dated 05.02.2009. When he began the enquiry, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.08.2009 stating that as the Criminal Case in C.C.No.33 of 2008 was pending before the Special Court, for Forest Cases, Nagercoil, the enquiry can be kept in abeyance. In the aforesaid representation dated 14.08.2009, the petitioner also requested to provide legal assistance ie., either to engage a Lawyer or a co-employee with legal knowledge or any other office bearer, to defend him in the enquiry. But, vide order dated 03.05.2010, the said request of the petitioner was negatived by the Enquiry Officer. Not satisfied with the rejection, the petitioner, once again, made another representation, dated 08.06.2010 stating that he was only an ordinary Driver, having educational qualification upto 9th standard, and therefore, prayed for legal assistance, which was also rejected on 16.06.2010.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has assailed both the charge memo and the order rejecting the request for legal assistance orders, contending inter alia that the Joint Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil, second respondent herein, has failed to furnish the documents mentioned in annexure III of the charge memorandum as well as the statements of witnesses, mentioned in annexure IV, which is a violation of Rule III (2)(d)&e of Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited [Disciplinary and Appeal] Rules, and that therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Placing reliance on a decision of a Division
