The Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging penalty orders for misconduct involving missing public property. The court held that the Board's internal discipline regulation applied to workmen and no infirmity was found in the penalty or the absence of cross-examination.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
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 : 10.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.Nos.46617 & 46618 of 2006
K.M.Sheikhan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.46617 of 2006
1.G.Murali (Late) 2.M.Sakila 3.M.Dinesh 4.M.Divya 5.G.Sagunthala ... Petitioners in W.P.No.46618 of 2006 (P2 to P5 are substituted as LRS) Vs.
1.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rural and Water Supply Division, Villupuram.
2.The Chief Engineer, Northern Region, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vellore.
3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents in both W.Ps.
Prayer in W.P.No.46617 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the order of penalty passed in Na.Mu.No.19376/2002-2/E3/24/Tha.po. dated 24.01.2005 by the second respondent awarding a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.50717/- and the subsequent order of confirming the penalty passed in proceeding No.17746/Ni(O.Na)Aa-1/2005-15 dated 10.10.2006 by the third respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents not to withhold any other benefits in consequence of the penalty orders connected with the charges which the
petitioner legally entitled to receive.
Prayer in W.P.No.46618 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the order of penalty passed in Na.Mu.No.19376/2003-3/E3/Tha.po/va.ma dated 24.01.2005 by the second respondent awarding a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1,01,434/and the subsequent order of confirming the penalty passed in proceeding No.18828/Ni(O.Na)Aa-1/2005-3 dated 10.10.2006 by the third respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents not to withhold any other benefits in consequence of the penalty orders connected with the charges which the petitioner legally entitled to receive.
For Petitioners in both W.Ps. : Mr.G.P.Arivuchudar
For Respondents in both W.Ps. : Mr.S.Eraskine Leo, Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners seeking to quash the order of penalty passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the third respondent and also to direct the respondents not to withhold any other benefits consequent to the penalty orders connected with the charges.
first respondent who inturn informed the Villupuram Police Station Officials. The police has registered the complaint as Crime No.848/2003 and took up for investigation.
neither any witness was examined nor any document filed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court dated 11.10.1990 in the case of The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and another vs. M.D.Vijayakumar and Others and submitted that in the eye of law, the disciplinary action initiated is not sustainable.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True copy Sub-Assistant Registrar
nl To
1.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rural and Water Supply Division, Villupuram.
2.The Chief Engineer, Northern Region, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vellore. 3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
+1 cc to G.P.Arivuchudar Advocate sr40243
W.P.Nos.46617 & 46618 of 2006 ak(co) aa20/01/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1972 is applicable to workmen/drivers under section 2(i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Ord
Whether the appointment of the Deputy Superintending Engineer as enquiry officer was in violation of Regulation 9(f).
Whether the disciplinary proceedings were sustainable despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination or examination of witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and another vs. M.D.Vijayakumar and OthersReferred¶28
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K.M.Sheikhan
M.Sakila
The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rural and Water Supply Division, Villupuram
The Chief Engineer, Northern Region, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vellore
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
