Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1814
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
A. Vijayalakshmi
Versus
The Director, Social Welfare Department & Others
W.P (MD) Nos. 3117, 3118, 3470 & 4720 of 2011 & M.P (MD) Nos. 1,1,1 & 1 of 2011
Decided on: 04-07-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.P.S. Palanivel Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Aayiram K. Selvakumar, Govt. Advocate.
In a departmental enquiry, the burden of proof lies with the department, and violation of natural justice principles can lead to setting aside of termination orders.
Headnote:
Termination - Departmental Enquiry - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - [Writ Petitions] - [Children Welfare Organizer] - [Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules] - [Summary]: The court considered the termination of petitioners based on forged S.S.L.C. certificates and found that the department failed to prove the charges and violated the principles of natural justice. Citing previous judgments, the court set aside the termination orders and directed the settlement of terminal benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were Children Welfare Organizers, were terminated based on forged S.S.L.C. certificates. They challenged the termination through writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the department failed to prove the charges and violated the principles of natural justice. Citing previous judgments, the court set aside the termination orders and directed the settlement of terminal benefits.
Issues: Termination based on forged certificates, violation of natural justice, settlement of terminal benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: In a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges against the delinquent. Violation of principles of natural justice can lead to setting aside of termination orders. The court can direct the settlement of terminal benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions, set aside the termination orders, and directed the settlement of terminal benefits for the petitioners.
1. W.P(MD)No.3117 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.42051/Nir5-3/2003 dated 24.08.2007 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider that the petitioner had deemed to have retired from 31.03.2007 and pay all future benefits.
2. W.P(MD)No.3118 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.47173/Nir5(3)/2003 dated 09.04.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and terminal benefits and pass other further order from 09.04.2008.
3. W.P(MD)No.3470 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.63866/Nir3(2)/1998 dated 22.07.2003 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and terminal benefits.
4. W.P(MD)No.4720 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.80061/Nir 5-3/99, dated 29.08.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and terminal benefits.
5. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.
6. The case of the petitioners is that they joined as Children Welfare Organizer (Bala Sevika) under the first respondent. Thereafter, they had completed the their S.S.L.C. examination as private candidates. Subsequent to the same, they were promoted as the Rural Welfare Officers (W). While so, they were issued with the charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, stating that on verification with the fourth respondent, the S.S.L.C., certificates produced by the petitioners were reported to be forged ones. Thereafter, they submitted their explanations to the first respondent, who, had not satisfied with the same and directed the petitioners to appear for enquiry. Based on the communication sent by the fourth respondent, the first respondent found that the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved and passed the impugned orders of termination. The relevant details pertaining to the petitioners, could be set out thus:
Sl. No. W.P. (MD) Nos. Name of the Petitioner(s) Date of Joining as C.W.O. Month of Pass in S.S.L.C. Date of Impugned Order(s)
1 3117 of 2011 A. Vijayalakshmi 15.08.1972 October, 1993 24.08.2007
2 3118 of 2011 V. Kesammal 15.08.1972 October, 1993 09.04.2008
3 3470 of 2011 P. Pounuthai 19.04.1976 October, 1994 22.07.2003
4 4720 of 2011 D. Sakunthala 22.05.1979 October, 1993 29.08.2007
Challenging the impugned orders of termination, they have come forward with the above writ petitions.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue in the present writ petitions, is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Neelavathy v. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai, and others, [W.P(MD)No.15932 of 2012, decided on 09.06.2014], and hence, he prayed for similar relief to the petitioners herein also.
8. No counter affidavit is forthcoming from the respondents denying the allegations of the petitioners.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
10. This Court, in the judgment in Neelavathy v. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai, and others, [W.P(MD)No.15932 of 2012, decided on 09.06.2014], has passed the following order:
"7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. The charge against the petitioner is that she produced bogus SSLC certificate to claim pr
