Remanded

S.Muruganandam, v. The Chairman Cum

Madras HC27 Jul 2015WP/22486/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal was non-speaking as per regulation. It remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a speaking order with reasons for rejecting the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.06.2015 set aside; matter remitted to first respondent to pass speaking order within six weeks under Clause 15 of T.N.E.B. Regulations; no costs.

S.Muruganandam, Vs The Chairman Cum — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.22486 OF 2015 AND

¶6

M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2015

¶7

S.Muruganandam ... Petitioner

¶8

vs. 1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,(TANGEDCO) 144,Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002.

¶9

The Chief Engineer (Region) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Tatabad, Coimbatore - 642 012. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Nilai No.145 dated 27.06.2015 and the 2nd respondent charge memo No.04396/172/NiP.2(U3)/2012-12 dated 13.06.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct 2nd respondent to reimburse the reduced pay and refix the petitioner's pay scale and confer all monetary and consequential benefits.

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar

¶12

By an order dated 13.06.2013 of the second respondent, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of bringing down the monetary benefits equivalent of the basic pay and grade pay by 3 times for two years with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the first respondent on 27.06.2015. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Clause 15 of T.N.E.B.Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the Appellate Authority shall dwell into the facts and pass a speaking order. But the impugned order of the first respondent did not contain any reason for rejecting the appeal. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶16

It is useful to refer to Clause 15 of T.N.E.B.Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations:-

¶17

"(1) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in Regulation 5, the appellate authority shall consider:

¶18

(a) whether the facts on which the order was based have been established;

¶19

(b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action;

¶20

¶21

(i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or

¶22

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; provided that:-

¶23

(i) If the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in items (iv),(v) (c), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Regulation 5 and an enquiry under subRegulation (b) of Regulation 8 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall subject to the provisions of the sub-Regulation (c) of Regulation 8, itself hold such enquiry or direct that enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of sub-Regulation (b) of Regulation 8 and thereafter, on a consideration of the proceedings of such enquiry and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry make such orders as it may deem fit;

¶24

(ii) If the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties in items (iv), (v) (c) (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Regulation 5 and an enquiry under sub-Regulation (b) of Regulation 8 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority after giving the appellant

¶25

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

¶26

reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during enquiry, make such orders as it may deem fit; and

¶27

(iii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-regulation (b) of Regulation 8 of making representation against such enhanced penalty".

¶28

(2) Any error or defect in the procedure followed in imposing a penalty may be disregarded by the appellate authority if such authority considers, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the error or defect was not material and has neither caused injustice to the person concerned nor affected the decision of the case.

¶29

(3) The appellate authority or any higher authority than the competent authority prescribed in regulation 6 may suo motto call for the enquiry papers, even in the absence of any appeal from the accused person and review the decision of the competent authority taking into account all recorded facts and also other facts subsequently disclosed. Such authority may amend the orders if in its opinion the punishment given is inadequate or excessive, provided that in case the punishment awarded is considered inadequate, the accused person may be given an opportunity to be heard before the punishment is enhanced."

¶30

At this juncture, it is also useful to refer to paragraph 2 of the impugned order, dated 27.06.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority:-

¶31

"2) ,Wjp Mizapd; kPjhd cj;juit 19/06/2013 md;W bgw;Wf; bfhz;L xU khj fhybfLtpw;Fs; 01/07/2013 ehspl;l nky;KiwaPL kDit jiyth; (k) nkyhz;ik ,af;Feh; / / jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfph;khdf; fHfk; mth;fSf;F rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;/ mk;kDtpid chpa nfhg;g[fs; (k) Mtz';fSld; jiyth; (k) nkyhz;ik ,af;Feh; / / jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfph;khdf; fHfk; mth;fs; ghprPyid bra;jjpy; nky;KiwaPl;L kDit epuhfhpg;gbjd KobtLj;Js;shh; ."

¶32

The impugned order, on the face of it, is a non-speaking order. No reason is given for rejecting the appeal, except stating that records have been perused. In my view, the same is not sufficient to reject the appeal.

¶33

It is well-settled in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that even in administrative decisions resulting in adverse civil

¶34

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

¶35

consequences, the person should be heard. The Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another V. Sh.Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 held that the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially and has formulated certain principles in paragraph 47 of its judgment, and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder :-

¶36

“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶37

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. .....” 8. In view of the above, the order dated 27.06.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, who shall consider the matter afresh and pass a speaking order in terms of Clause 15 of T.N.E.B.Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,(TANGEDCO)
144,Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Region)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TANGEDCO), Tatabad, Coimbatore - 642 012.
+1cc to M/s Row & Reddy, Advocate in SR 38260
W.P.No.22486 of 2015
LRS (CO)
RS 14.08.2015

¶39

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

S.Muruganandam, v. The Chairman Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muruganandam, v. The Chairman Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Prabu Vs The Director

Tmt.R.Sathya, D.T.Ed., B.Lit., Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Vijayalakshmi, Dy Block Vs The District Collector

Mir Ziauddin, Vs The Secretary to Government

D.Sundaram, Vs The Chaiman Cum Managing

K.Balasubramanian Vs The Secretary to the Govt