Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41968
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
C.AMIRTHALINGAM – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MANAGER/ – Respondent
W.P.No.31790 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013
Mr.D.Balachandran, Mr.N.Nithianandam
The court emphasized the necessity of fair procedures in disciplinary actions, particularly when a party is unable to participate due to health issues, and the availability of alternative remedies does not preclude judicial review.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner was removed from service for habitual absenteeism without participating in the enquiry due to illness - The court found the ex-parte proceedings unjust as the petitioner was unable to respond due to health issues. (Paras 11, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction under Article 226 - The court emphasized that the availability of alternative remedies does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction in cases of grave misconduct and procedural violations. (Paras 13, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was removed from service after being absent for extended periods due to illness, with disciplinary proceedings concluded without his participation.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the removal order, citing the arbitrary nature of the ex-parte proceedings while acknowledging the petitioner's absenteeism.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings were justified given the petitioner's health condition during the enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to the arbitrary and hasty manner in which they were conducted, denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Result: The removal order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated without back wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondents filed counter affidavit (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the charge that is levelled (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. the court ruled that (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. the impugned order dated (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER
The petitioner herein was appointed as Industrial Worker Grade I (Mechanical) in the year 1992 in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Technician – I. While, the petitioner was continuing in the said post, the respondent Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo dated 27.12.2007. The charges framed against the petitioner reads as under:
“CHARGES:
“ It is reported that Shri.C.Amirthalingam, CPF No.38839, working as Tech.Gr.I in Middle Bench/Mine.I is unauthorisedly absenting himself from duty with effect from 02.11.2007 without leave letter and without prior permission from his superior. More over the individual is a habitual absentee as detailed below”.
In the year 2003 the individual has availed 115 days leave in 20 spells.
In the year 2004 the individual has availed 088 days leave in 06 spells.
In the year 2005 the individual has availed 129 days leave in 15 spells.
In the year 2006 the individual has availed 187 days leave in 18 spells.
In the year 2007 the individual has availed 211 days leave in 10 spells up to Nov.
The acts alleged as above, if established will constitute misconducts of (a) Habitual absence without leave or without sufficient cause falling under sub-clause (vii) of NLC Standing Order – 46.
(b) Continuous absence for more than ten days without leave and without satisfactory cause falling under sub- clause (xxxi) of NLC Standing Order – 46. and (c) Breach of any standing orders or any rules framed under these orders falling under sub-clause (xxxviii) of Standing Order – 46.”
2. As the petitioner failed to submit any explanation in response to the said charge memo dated 27.12.2007, an enquiry officer was appointed through proceedings dated 04.01.2008. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry into the matter on 11.01.2008, 21.01.2008 and 28.01.2008 and submitted Ex-parte report on 07.02.2008. It was thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16.02.2008 was issued while furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry officer calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of removal from service of the Corporation with effect from the date on which the individual last attended duty be not imposed. As the petitioner failed to respond to the said show cause notice, and the said show cause notice was also could not be served on the petitioner for want of his availability either in the Corporation or at the addresses where he supposed to be available, a paper publication dated 27.03.2008 was issued by the Corporation requiring the petitioner to collect the copy of the show cause notice, within seven days from the date of such publication. As the petitioner failed to respond even to the said publication, final order dated 09.04.2008 came to be passed by the 1 st respondent imposing the punishment of removal from service from the Corporation with effect from the date on which the individual last attended duty. A copy of the said final order was communicated to the petitioner on 16.04.2008.
3. It was thereafter, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 14.10.2008 before the respondent requesting for reinstatement into service and thereafter, once again another representation was claimed to have been submitted by the petitioner on 04.09.2012. It was thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 09.04.2008 passed by the 1 st respondent contending that he has discharged his duties after his initial appointment in the year 1992 for more than ten years and thereafter, because of the illness suffered by him, he was constrained to remain absent by submitting medical cer
