The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking reinstatement after termination. The Court found the petitioner had manipulated records to fraudulently claim permanent status under a Government Order based on service before 1.10.1996, despite actually joining in 1998. The disciplinary enquiry and termination were upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2019
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.28564 of 2004
K. Nanthakumar ... Petitioner
v.
1. The Municipal Commissioner,
Mettur Municipality,
Mettur,
Salem District.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to his Pro.Na.Ka.No.9091/2003/C1, dated 25.08.2004, quash the same and issue consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Ravi
For Respondents : Mr. S. Saravanan – for R1 For Mr.K.S.Jayaganeshan
Mr. S.Suresh Kumar – for R2 Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent dated 25.08.2004, to quash the same and issue consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
2.1 The petitioner entered the service in Mettur Municipality in May 1996 as a daily wage worker, by virtue of the oral orders issued by the then Municipal Commissioner for typing matters related to the Audit Report for the year 19941995 and for preparation of the Manuscript voters' list for the local body election and continued to serve as such after Thiru. Ramaswamy took over as Municipal Commissioner during local body election and had been attending to all typing works as instructed by the Municipal Commissioner and other officials of the Municipality.
2.2 The petitioner contended that with a view to absorb the daily wage workers in all the Municipalities in the State in permanent establishment, the Government of Tamil Nadu, passed order in G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999, directing for the preparation of the list of daily wage employees, who were served as such before 01.10.1996 and to absorb them in regular establishment of the Municipality on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- for one year, at the first instance, with all service benefits and thereafter place them in regular time scale of pay. Since the petitioner was served in the Municipality from May 1996, the 1st respondent included his name in the said list, after having been fully satisfied that he was eligible for the benefits of the Government order. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- on the basis of Resolution No.3, dated 28.04.2000 of the Appointments Committee of the Municipality. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to be removed from the Muster Roll by orders dated 25.04.2003 and 27.05.2003.
2.3 Challenging the same, the petition preferred an Original Application in O.A.No.2166 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dated 28.10.2013, set aside the termination order on the ground that it has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and directed the respondents to serve a Charge Memo and conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service as a daily wage worker with effect from 24.02.2004.
2.4 The 1st respondent, by his proceedings dated 18.03.2004, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and framed three charges, alleging that in order to obtain the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 27.05.1999, the petitioner furnished false information to the Municipality and connived with the officials to manipulate the official records as if he had been serving as daily wage worker in the Municipality from 01.08.1996, though he was actually serving from 01.09.1997 and got himself appointed as Junior Assistant on
consolidated pay basis by committing the act of misrepresentation of facts.
2.5 The petitioner sent his explanation dated 06.04.2004. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer also filed his report dated 30.07.2004 rendering his findings that the charges were proved.
2.6 On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2004, terminating the petitioner's services from 25.08.2004. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition.
3.1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the charges framed against him or vague and bereft of material particulars. That apart, the petitioner's request to furnish the list of witnesses was also not acceded. Further, the learned counsel contended that the Enquiry Officer failed to examine any witness to prove the allegation of misrepresentation.
3.2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied upon an unreported order dated 01.06.2016 made in W.P.Nos.3990 of 2014 and 3510 of 2015 [M.Manohar vs Government Of Tamil Nadu and ors.] wherein, this Court held as follows:-
“... 26. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that even in the said report, Thiru V.Balakrishnan, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, has opined as to the surcharged atmosphere prevailing and also as to the happening of many issues simultaneously in quick succession. It is very unfortunate to note that the case in Cr.No.155/08 registered by Koodakovil Police Station, after investigation, has culminated into a charge sheet, which has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam in P.R.C.No.30/2010 and it was not withdrawn at that point of time. However, the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Additional Director General of Police, overlooking the fact and without application of mind as to the pendency of criminal prosecution on the file of the Court of competent jurisdiction, had used the word in Charge No.I foisted case and it is also repeated in para 3 of the Statement of Allegations in Annexure-II. It
is not even within the jurisdiction/realm of the Disciplinary Authority, namely Additional Director General of Police to conclude that the criminal case and that too registered at the instance of Woman Sub-Inspector of Police Tmt.Sathyapraba, which after investigation, has resulted in a positive final report, is a foisted one. Thiru V.Balakrishnan, IPS, who conducted the Inquiry, in pursuant to the directions of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, in his conclusion, has opined that Thiru R.Samy, MLA was not the part of the unlawful assembly which damaged police vehicles and therefore, their involvement in Koodakovil Police Station Cr.No.155/08 is highly doubtful. Here again, the said official has overlooked the fact that the case in the above said crime number, after investigation has resulted in the filing of charge sheet which has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam as early as on 29.10.2010 itself in P.R.C.No.30/2010. The Disciplinary Authority has assumed the role of judicial forum by stating that the case is a foisted one and he should not have stated so. Thus, the charge memo itself came to be issued without due and proper application of mind to the material facts and more particularly on account of pendency of the case in P.R.C.No.30/2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and that apart, the contents of the charge memo as well as statement of imputations are also vague and therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the writ petitioner, namely Thiru.M.Manohar is put to serious prejudice and handicapped in defending the charges framed against him in the impugned charge memo. ...”
Therefore, the allegation that the impugned order had been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner is not sustainable.
enable the petitioner to peruse all the records. Further, the petitioner was served with all the documents on 07.07.2004. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has not given any opportunity to him cannot be accepted.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) // True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
+1cc to Mr.S.Sravanan, Advocate, SR.No.93995. +1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.94106.
(CO) CSR(26/11/2019)
W.P.No.28564 of 2004
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of petitioner's services for manipulation of records to claim permanent establishment benefits was legally sustainable.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted in accordance with law providing sufficient opportunity.
Whether the reliance on previous precedent regarding vague charges was appropriate given the facts of the current case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
In W.P.Nos.3990 of 2014 and 3510 of 2015 [M.Manohar vs Government Of Tamil Nadu and ors.]Distinguished¶25
K. Nanthakumar
The Municipal Commissioner, Mettur Municipality
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai
M. Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
