Allowed

K.Balasubramanian v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2014WP/6962/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the summary termination of a petitioner's service. The court held that terminating the petitioner without a prior show cause notice, charge memo, or domestic enquiry violated principles of natural justice. The termination order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order dated 28.2.2002 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service within four weeks.

K.Balasubramanian Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

Writ Petition No.6962 of 2007 (O.A.No.4196 of 2002)

¶6

K.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
2. The Divisional Development Officer,
Moolanur Panchayat Union,
Dharapuram Taluk,
Erode District.
3. The President,
Velampoondi Panchayat
Moolanur Panchayat Union,
Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition, having been transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.4196 of 2002, is filed to call for the record of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.53090/2001/PE1 dated 28.2.2002 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as null and void and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his service with all service and monetary benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.Mothappan For Respondents : Mr.S.Navaneetham, AGP (R1) Mr.Elango (R2) Mr.V.Subbiah (R3)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard both sides.

¶12

2.The petitioner has in this writ petition challenged the order, terminating him from service, passed by the first respondent/District Collector, Erode. The petitioner joined as Assistant on 30.10.1988 in Punjai Thalaiyur Panchayat Union and continued upto 11.8.1998 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereafter was transferred to Velampoondi Panchayat on 12.8.1998. The petitioner was admittedly on medical leave from 4.2.1999 to 29.5.1999 and he absented from duty, after expiry of his medical leave.

¶13

3.While according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner appeared for joining duty on 29.5.1999 by submitting his representation to the President, Velampoondi Panchayat, but no posting order was issued, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner absented unauthorisedly from duty on his own. All of sudden, the petitioner was on 28.2.2002 served with the order of termination passed by the first respondent, which is impugned herein.

¶14

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the petitioner reported for duty on expiry of medical leave, he was directed to clear the accounts of revenue collection and also asked to deposit the arrears of land revenue collected by him and accordingly he settled the accounts on 3.1.2000 and was waiting for posting order to be issued. The petitioner was not issued with any posting order, inspite of the recommendation of Block Development Officer and he was compulsorily kept away from service for the period mentioned in the impugned order.

¶15

5.However, the impugned order, terminating the petitioner from service, came to be passed on two grounds: (i)revenue collected during his period of service in Punjai Thalaiyur Panchayat Union was not immediately brought into account and the same was thereafter collected and brought into account; and (ii)he was unauthorisedly absent from 29.5.99 onwards.

¶16

6.It is not in dispute that the impugned order was not preceded by any show cause notice or charge memo or domestic enquiry by the department. Without doing so, the petitioner was terminated from service for temporary misappropriation of amount and for the alleged act of unauthorised absent from duty. Had any show cause notice been served and charge memo been issued, the petitioner would have been able to submit his detailed explanation about his stand in this regard. Had the departmental enquiry been conducted, he would have been able to defend himself in the same so as to discharge him from the charges levelled against him. The failure to do so has deprived the petitioner from availing his right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him and the same vitiates the termination order, which is impugned herein. On this score alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶17

7.In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the first respondent. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and without backwages. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dated: 04.04.2014

¶19

//True Copy// https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶22

The Divisional Development Officer, Moolanur Panchayat Union, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.

¶23

The President, Velampoondi Panchayat Moolanur Panchayat Union, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.

¶24

1 CC to M/s.M.Hidayadullakan, Advocate SR.No.11260

¶25

Writ Petition No.6962 of 2007(T)
GJ(CO)
JJM (07.04.2014)

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Balasubramanian v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Balasubramanian v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Muniraman Vs the Director of Sericulture

R.Mohan Vs the Joint Director of School

P. Thangapalam, Vs the Executive Engineer

R.Sakthivel Vs the Secretary

S. Kannammal Vs Director of Municipal

R. Kanagaraj Vs the Block Development