Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
M. Rajesekaran – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, (The Appellate Authority), Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Limited, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. (MD). No. 22236 of 2018 & W.M.P. (MD). Nos. 20168 & 20169 of 2018
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Negligence - Disciplinary Proceedings - G.O.Ms.No.68 - [Cane Assistant] - [Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983] - [Section 75(4)(a), G.O.Ms.No.68] - The court held that the G.O.Ms.No.68 deals with disciplinary proceedings, and the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings is the Commissioner of Sugars. The disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Chief Executive of Aringar Anna Sugar Mills was without jurisdiction, and the impugned order was quashed. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and backwages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cane Assistant, was terminated from service based on charges of negligence causing a loss to the Sugar Mill. The petitioner challenged the termination, arguing that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the G.O.Ms.No.68 deals with disciplinary proceedings and that the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings is the Commissioner of Sugars. The disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Chief Executive of Aringar Anna Sugar Mills was without jurisdiction.
Issues: The key issues were the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.68 in the disciplinary process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the G.O.Ms.No.68 deals with disciplinary proceedings, and the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings is the Commissioner of Sugars. The disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Chief Executive of Aringar Anna Sugar Mills was without jurisdiction, and the impugned order was quashed.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and backwages.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ref.Che.Mu.Na.No.Pa A/771/2016/B5 dated 18.11.2017 on the file of the second respondent and the consequential order passed in Ref.No.051/2018/E1 dated 02.08.2018 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner as Cane Assistant, with consequential benefits.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 18.11.2017 and the consequential order dated 02.08.2018 with a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner as Cane Assistant, with consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner has been recruited as Cane Assistant on 22.11.1989 and later joined as Cane Assistant on 10.10.2008 at Arignar Anna Sugar Mills at Kurungulam. While he was working, a charge memo dated 07.06.2016 was issued levelling 10 charges against the petitioner, the petitioner submitted explanation on 2.08.2016. In pursuant to the charge memo, an enquiry officer was appointed, after enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted is report dated 10.04.2017, exonerating the petitioner from 7 charges but held 3 charges are proved (charges No.3, 7 and 10). In the meanwhile, FIR was registered in Crime No.39 of 2015 on 17.12.2015. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 05.08.2017 and the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation dated 05.09.2017 with regard to charges which were held to be proved by the enquiry officer. However, without considering the petitioner''s explanation, the second respondent has passed an impugned order dated 18.11.2017 alleging that due to negligence, the petitioner caused a loss of Rs.41,04,270/- to the Sugar Mill and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by citing Clause 2(f) of the Standing Orders. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an Appeal dated 30.12.2017 to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein has passed the consequential impugned order dated 02.08.2018, confirming the punishment imposed by the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that due to negligence, the petitioner caused huge loss to the tune of Rs.41,04,270/- to the Sugar Mill. Hence, he was issued with charge memo and consequently an FIR was registered in Crime No.39 of 2015 on the file of District Crime Branch, Thanajavur against the petitioner and some other persons. Without prejudice to the criminal action, departmental proceedings were initiated. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry and was given sufficient opportunity. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was terminated from service through the impugned orders. The contention of the respondents is that the charges against the petitioner is more specific, and as such the claim of the petitioner is that some of the charges are not proved will not be a bar for the disciplinary action against the other specific charge against the petitioner. Hence, the three charges are clearly proved, according to the documentary and primary evidence, there cannot be any oral denial is permissible against the documentary evidence relied by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, since the rule of law strictly achieved with the findings of the disciplinary authority is upheld. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.
4. Heard Mr. Karthik, for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Saji Bino, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The charges that were held to be proved are as under:
Charge No.(3): During the tenure the petitioner have failed to attend the basic duty of field inspection and failed to obtain signatures of farmers in the field registers which comes under the in
The authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per G.O.Ms.No.68 is the Commissioner of Sugars, and the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Chief Executive of Aringar Anna Sugar Mills was ....
The G.O.Ms.No.68 covers disciplinary proceedings, and the Commissioner of Sugar is the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an incompetent authority are void ab initio, and penalties imposed without jurisdiction are null and unenforceable.
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and legal disciplinary proceedings and held that disciplinary actions must be based on valid grounds and not be initiated for collateral purposes.
Order of punishment legally passed by competent authority, cannot be interfered with.
Disciplinary proceedings against civil servants must adhere to established rules and procedures; the authority's decisions are upheld if they follow due process.
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
