Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, G.Arul Murugan, JJ.
C.Punniyakotti – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Zari Limited – Respondent
W.A.No.1321 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.8979 of 2019
Decided On : 19-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for Mr.R.Rajaram
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Neelakandan Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram
The court affirmed that disciplinary charge memos can be upheld despite prior proceedings against another employee if substantial misconduct is established.
Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Charge Memo - The appellant challenged the charge memo issued for misappropriation of funds during his tenure as cashier, arguing it was unjustified due to prior proceedings against another employee for the same period. The court held that the appellant's involvement in manipulation and misappropriation warranted the charge memo's validity. (Paras 6, 28, 36)
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - The court emphasized that challenges to charge memos are limited to jurisdictional issues, malafide intentions, or violations of statutory rules, and cannot be quashed at the initial stage. (Paras 28, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a storekeeper, was charged with misappropriating Rs.9,15,000/- during his time as cashier, while another employee had already faced disciplinary action for a larger misappropriation. (Paras 2, 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions constituted serious misconduct, justifying the charge memo despite previous proceedings against another employee. (Paras 36, 38)
Issues: The main issues included whether the charge memo was valid given prior proceedings against another employee and the grounds for challenging the memo. (Paras 5, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's manipulation of accounts warranted the charge memo, and challenges to such memos are limited in scope. (Paras 28, 36)
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
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 the District Court No.II, Kancheepuram, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.52,48,717/- after deducting the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- repaid by him.
4. While the proceedings stood thus, the appellant was issued with the charge memo dated 19.10.2017 charging him for having manipulated the statement of accounts by utilising forged bank statement and misappropriating the company cash of Rs.9,15,000/- for the period from 27.05.2010 to 07.06.2011. The appellant had submitted a reply dated 16.01.2018 and not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer has been appointed and the appellant had participated in the enquiry.
5. However, when the enquiry was pending, the appellant had preferred the writ petition challenging the charge memo issued against him on the ground that when already one R.Mani has been charged in respect of the misappropriation, including for this period, the proceedings initiated by issuing a charge memo for the same period cannot be maintained, particularly when already R.Mani has been punished and further he has admitted his guilt and also partly repaid the amount.
6. The learned single Judge by observing that in fact the appellant had also been involved in connivance with the other officials and the said R.Mani wherein a sum of Rs.16,00,77,090/- was misappropriated, for which a separate charge memo was issued to him and further when serious charges of misappropriation were made in the impugned charge memo and the appellant having submitted his reply and also participated in the enquiry, had to face the disciplinary proceedings and the challenge to charge memo can be maintained only on limited grounds of lack of jurisdiction, malafide intention, by an incompetent authority or in violation of any statutory rules, had dismissed the writ petition.
7. Assailing the order of the writ court, the appellant had preferred the above appeal.
8. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant argued that with respect to the shortfall of money credited into the bank account for the period from 1999-2000 to 2011-2012, the impugned charge memo issued as against the appellant for a particular period 2011-2012 cannot be maintained. It is his further contention that the said R.Mani, who was working as cashier and involved in misappropriation, had admitted his guilt and has also repaid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and while so, the charge in respect of a sum of Rs.9,15,000/- made against the appellant, which is already covered in the proceedings initiated against R.Mani, cannot be sustained.
9. It is his further submission that when the respondent themselves had lodged a complaint only as against R.Mani who was the cashier and also F.I.R. came to be registered as against him and further when already an enquiry has been conducted wherein R.Mani was found responsible fo
