Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, JJ.
The Joint Registrar/Administrator, M/s. Tiruthani Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited
Versus
P. Siva Kumar & Others
W.A.No.1801 of 2013
Decided on: 18-11-2014
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 - Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 - Section 153 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 617 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - Order of suspension – Employment and service – Quash of order - Single Judge while setting aside order of suspension incidentally held that first respondent being an employee of Co-Operative Society is not a public servant as defined under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to attract provisions of Sections 7 and 13 of Act - Insofar as said finding rendered by single Judge this writ appeal is filed by appellant which is also fully supported by respondents 2 and 3 - Facts leading to filing of writ petition by first respondent - First respondent was appointed as Assistant Cane Officer at Sugar Mills and was subsequently promoted as Cane Officer in charge of Chief Cane Officer and posted at Co-Operative Sugar Mills - Sugar Mills are created and registered under Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 - When he was discharging his duties as Chief Cane Officer Joint Registrar/Administrator Sugar Mills Limited suspended three Cane Assistants from service of which one Cane Assistant viz. Vedachalam threatened first respondent that he was responsible for his suspension as he sent a report to Joint Registrar – Held, Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant howsoever high he may be and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under PC Act, 1988 - Status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment - Decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by same process of inquiry and investigation - PC Act, 1988 is a special statute and its Preamble shows that it has been enacted to consolidate and amend law relating to prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith - It is intended to make corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening provisions - It came to be enacted because Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as amended from time to time was inadequate to deal with offences of corruption effectively - New Act now seeks to provide for speedy trial of offences punishable under Act in public interest as legislature had become aware of corruption amongst public servants - Corruption corrodes moral fabric of society and corruption by public servants not only leads to corrosion of moral fabric of society but is also harmful to national economy and national interest as persons occupying high posts in Government by misusing their power due to corruption can cause considerable damage to national economy national interest and image of country - PC Act, 1988 has also widened scope of definition of expression public servant and incorporated offences under Sections 161 to 165-A of Penal Code - By Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 further amendments have been made therein – Thus it is evident that corrupt practices indulged by public servant is alarming and Courts are bound to widen scope of interpretation of words public servant - Sugar Mills are performing public duty and first respondent while working as Cane Officer of Co-operative Sugar Mills which was created and registered under Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 is a public servant within meaning of Section 2(c) of Act - In light of above findings court are not pursuaded to accept findings given by single Judge - Writ appeal stands allowed
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.
1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.25143 of 2011 dated 15.2.2012, wherein the first respondent herein has challenged the order of suspension issued by the appellant dated 18.3.2009 confirmed by the Commissioner of Sugars by order dated 31.10.2012 and for a direction to the appellant to restore the first respondent in service with all attendant benefits.
2. The learned single Judge while setting aside the order of suspension, incidentally held that the first respondent being an employee of the Co-Operative Society (Sugar Mills), is not a "public servant" as defined under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to attract the provisions of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Insofar as the said finding rendered by the learned single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant, which is also fully supported by the respondents 2 and 3.
3. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition by the first respondent are as follows:
(a) The first respondent was appointed as Assistant Cane Officer on 27.11.1982 at Perambalur Sugar Mills and was subsequently promoted as Cane Officer in charge of Chief Cane Officer and posted at Tiruthani Co-Operative Sugar Mills. The Sugar Mills are created and registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983.
(b) When he was discharging his duties as Chief Cane Officer, the Joint Registrar/Administrator, Tiruthani Sugar Mills Limited suspended three Cane Assistants from service on 14.3.2009, of which one Cane Assistant viz., Vedachalam threatened the first respondent that he was responsible for his suspension as he sent a report to the Joint Registrar.
(c) The said Vedachalam lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police stating that the first respondent demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-for transferring him from Tiruvallur to Chengalpattu. According to the first respondent, he has no power to transfer Cane Assistants from one place to another and the said power is vested with the Joint Registrar/Administrator alone.
(d) On 17.3.2009 the said Vedachalam brought the Vigilance Police to the office where the first respondent was working and staged dharna as if he received a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The first respondent was arrested by the Police and after knowing the said factum of arrest, the Joint Registrar/Administrator suspended the first respondent from service on 18.3.2009.
(e) The first respondent made a representation to the Joint Registrar/second respondent on 4.5.2009 and prayed for revocation of suspension and no order having been passed, the first respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21535 of 2009 and prayed for disposal of the representation seeking revocation of suspension and this Court by order dated 23.10.2009 directed the Joint Registrar to dispose of the representation dated 4.5.2009 within four weeks.
(f) On 4.12.2009 the Joint Registrar/Administrator disposed of the representation and rejected the request seeking revocation of suspension stating that the first respondent shall get no objection certificate from the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The first respondent contended that he not being a Government Servant, no NOC from the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is required to be obtained.
(g) The first respondent filed a revision before the Director of Sugars under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 and challenged the order of suspension. No order having been passed in the revision, again he filed W.P.No.24627 of 2010 and prayed for disposal of the revision and this Court by order dated 1.11.2010 directed the Commissioner of Sugars to dispose of the revision within six weeks.
(h) On 31.12.2010 the revision was rejected. Consequently the first respondent challenged the order of suspension passed by the Joint Registrar/Administrator as well as the order passed by the Commissioner of Sugars under Sectio
SupremeToday
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
