Back
ANITA SUMANTH, G. ARUL MURUGAN
C. Punniyakotti – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Zari Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
This intra-court appeal is preferred as PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.02.2019 in W.P.No.12582 of 2018. against the order dated 26.02.2019 in W.P.No.12582 of 2018, wherein the writ petition preferred challenging the charge memo came to be dismissed.
2. The appellant, who was working as storekeeper in the respondent undertaking, was posted as cashier for the period from 21.05.2010 to 24.07.2011. Earlier, one R.Mani had been working as cashier from 1999 onwards till 20.05.2010. There was a shortfall in the amount remitted to the bank accounts and therefore, a charge memo came to be issued as against the said R.Mani wherein a sum of Rs.68,46,000/- was found to have not been deposited in the bank and thereby misappropriated.
3. Pursuant to the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately the said R.Mani was dismissed from service. Further, a criminal case has been registered against the said R.Mani and since he had admitted his guilt and also had repaid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the respondent undertaking, a suit had been filed as against the said R.Mani in O.S.No.57 of 2013 on the file of th
The court affirmed that disciplinary charge memos can be upheld despite prior proceedings against another employee if substantial misconduct is established.
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
Tribunal cannot interfere with disciplinary penalty unless arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide; limited to judicial review.
The issuance of a charge memo after significant delay and without adherence to natural justice principles constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Judicial review of disciplinary charge memos is limited; premature quashing is improper if charges are supported by evidence, requiring internal resolutions first.
Termination without adequate evidence and disregard for fair procedures violates principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that a second charge memo, being a replica of a previously quashed memo, was invalid, emphasizing the principle of non-duplication of disciplinary charges.
The delay in serving the charge memo, the relevance of the criminal case's outcome on departmental proceedings, and the similarity of charges in the criminal and departmental proceedings are crucial ....
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
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
