Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 383
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
V. Saravanan - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No. 14643 of 2012
Decided On : 03-06-2020
For the Petitioner:T. Antony Arulraj, Advocate. For the Respondents:D. Sivaraman, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prior permission for foreign employment and the obligations of a government servant under the Conduct Rules of the Corporation.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Employment Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.295, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.II) Department, dated 14.09.1995 - Summary: The court discussed the petitioner's unauthorized employment abroad, absence from work, and the rejection of his leave application. The court highlighted the legal provisions under G.O.Ms.No.295 and the Conduct Rules of the Corporation, emphasizing the requirement for prior permission for foreign employment and the obligations of a government servant. The court found the disciplinary action and dismissal from service to be legal and appropriate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, applied for leave to work abroad, which was rejected. He left the country and joined a company in Libya without permission. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence and misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions of unauthorized employment abroad, absence from work, and non-compliance with the leave rejection were in violation of the Conduct Rules of the Corporation. The dismissal from service was deemed legal and appropriate.
Issues: Unauthorized employment abroad, absence from work, rejection of leave application, disciplinary action, and dismissal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for prior permission for foreign employment under G.O.Ms.No.295 and the obligations of a government servant. The petitioner's actions were found to be in violation of the Conduct Rules of the Corporation, justifying the disciplinary action and dismissal from service.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 24.08.2012 No. “TAMIL”1/4124/2007 passed by the first respondent, confirming the order dated 13.07.2010 No.“TAMIL”1/4124/2007 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages and continuity of service.)
1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 24.08.2012 No. “TAMIL”1/4124/2007 passed by the first respondent confirming the order dated 13.07.2010 No. “TAMIL”1/4124/2007 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages and continuity of service.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the respondent Corporation as an Assistant Engineer (Trainee) on 15.12.1990 and subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Assistant Engineer (Civil). The petitioner has applied leave for two years for going abroad from 27.12.2004 before the concerned respondent, but his application was not placed before the Board for consideration. Without considering the petitioner's case, the respondent / Corporation issued a charge-memo dated 07.07.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.4640 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 31.10.2006 ordered the Writ Petition observing that since the leave application is pending without passing any final orders, charge memo framed at this stage is not maintainable and if the leave application is rejected, it is open to the respondents to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Thereafter, by order dated 14.12.2006, the respondent Corporation declined the petitioner's request for grant of leave of loss of pay. Challenging the same, again the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2268 of 2007. Pending the said Writ Petition, the second respondent Corporation has passed the impugned order, dated 13.07.2010 removing the petitioner from service and in the said Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2268 of 2007, this Court by order dated 25.01.2012, directed the respondents to furnish a copy of the order within a period of two weeks and granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal passed by the respondent Corporation in accordance with law and closed the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.4524 of 2012, challenging the impugned order dated 13.07.2010 and this Court by order dated 10.04.2012 disposed of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioner to avail an alternate remedy by way of an appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed an application before the Managing Director seeking condonation of delay. The first respondent / Managing Director has passed the impugned order dated 24.08.2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.
3. The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit and stated that the petitioner had applied for employment in abroad without permission and approval from the Management and subsequently, he applied leave for two years from 27.12.2004 by letter dated 10.12.2004. Before sanctioning of leave, he left the Country and joined in a company at Libia. Hence, disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner and charge memo was issued to him. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.4640 of 2006 to sanction leave for two years from 27.12.2004 and the Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.10.2006 with the observation that the charge-memo is not maintainable at this stage, since the leave application is pending without passing any orders. In case, the leave ap
