Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73224
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. RAMESH, J
V.Kumar, Junior Engineer – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner – Respondent
WP/28777/2017
The Deputy Commissioner of the Greater Chennai Corporation lacked the authority to dismiss a Junior Engineer from service because the power to impose penalties under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, was vested solely with the Commissioner of the Corporation.
Headnote:
DELEGATION OF POWERS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - [The Deputy Commissioner of the Greater Chennai Corporation lacked the authority to dismiss a Junior Engineer from service because the power to impose penalties under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, was vested solely with the Commissioner of the Corporation. The Deputy Commissioner's reliance on a delegation of powers from the Commissioner was invalid, and the dismissal order was quashed as a result.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer employed by the Greater Chennai Corporation, was dismissed from service based on an inquiry report received from the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP). The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the grounds that the Deputy Commissioner who passed the order lacked the authority to do so, that the order was a non-speaking order, and that the dismissal was an act of victimization.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to dismiss the petitioner from service because the power to impose penalties under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, was vested solely with the Commissioner of the Corporation. The Court also found that the dismissal order was a non-speaking order because it did not provide any reasons for the dismissal. Finally, the Court found that the dismissal was an act of victimization because the petitioner had previously been subjected to similar charges that had been dropped at the intervention of the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. 2. Whether the dismissal order was a non-speaking order. 3. Whether the dismissal was an act of victimization.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to impose penalties under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, is vested solely with the Commissioner of the Corporation. 2. A dismissal order must provide reasons for the dismissal in order to be valid. 3. An act of victimization occurs when an employee is subjected to adverse action because they have previously exercised their legal rights.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the dismissal order and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all monetary and attendant benefits.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.12.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.NO.28777 OF 2017
V.Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner (Works),
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 03.
... Respondent
PRAYER:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records on the file of the respondent herein in
his proceeding G.D.C.No.E4/8210/2008 dated 18.09.2017 of the
respondent and to quash the same and to issue direction to the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all
consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondent : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok
Standing Counsel
for Chennai Corporation
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition is heard on 23.12.2021.
2. Through the impugned order dated 18.09.2017, the
petitioner, who was employed as a Junior Engineer under the
Chennai Corporation was dismissed from services on the basis of
the inquiry report received from the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings (TDP) in TDP Case No.19 of 2012, by the Deputy
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation, who is the
respondent herein. The order of dismissal is challenged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, predominantly on three
grounds.
2.1) Firstly, the Authority Competent to impose a penalty
in respect of the officers of the Municipal Corporation would be
the Commissioner under Rule 10(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955
[hereinafter referred to as “DPT Rules”] and such powers cannot
be delegated to sub-ordinate officers.
2.2) Secondly, no reasons have been assigned in the impugned
order of dismissal and hence, is deemed to be a non speaking
order and therefore cannot be sustained.
2.3) Thirdly, the petitioner was earlier subjected to
similar charges which came to be dropped at the intervention of
the orders of this Court wherein strictures came to be passed
against the officials of the Chennai Corporation and therefore
the subsequent dismissal order is “malice in law” and amounts to
victimization.
2.4) The learned Standing counsel for the respondent would
submit that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to pass orders
in view of the Government Order in G.O.(2D) No.54, Municipal
Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 01.08.2016 on
the basis of the report of the Commissioner of Disciplinary
Proceedings, pursuant to which the charges came to be framed.
By placing reliance on the proceedings of the Commissioner dated
03.03.2016, she would submit that, as per Rule 6 of the Chennai
Corporation, Class III & IV Services (Discipline & Appeal) Bye-
laws 1983, the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation is the
disciplinary authority, who had delegated his powers of awarding
punishments specified in the bye-laws to the Deputy Commissioner
in his proceedings dated 03.03.2016 and hence the Deputy
Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order. By drawing attention to the impugned order, the
learned counsel submitted that the basis for arriving at the
decision was on the records available in the TDP case and
therefore, it cannot be termed as a “non speaking order”.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
the charges against the petitioner are very serious in nature,
relating to possession of disproportionate assets and in view of
the Government's recommendations to conduct an enquiry before
the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal, the impugned order came
to be passed and therefore, this is not a case of victimization.
3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the respective counsels.
https://hc
