Allowed

T.Pandian v. the District Manager

Madras HC4 Nov 2022WP(MD)/7277/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a charge memo alleging disproportionate assets acquired prior to the enforcement of specific Conduct Rules. The Court quashed the charge memo, holding that its issuance was without jurisdiction as the rules could not apply retrospectively to a contract employee.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge memo in ROC No.231/2018/A1 dated 14.12.2018 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with no costs.

T.Pandian Vs the District Manager — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7277 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.7277 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.6728 of 2020

T.Pandian

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai North, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memo of the respondent in ROC No.231/2018/A1, dated 14.12.2018 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P(MD)No.7277 of 2020

¶17

The petitioner is employed as a contract employee in the capacity of Supervisor in one of the liquor outlet run by TASMAC limited. The petitioner questions the impugned charge memo which alleges that the petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

¶18

The learned standing counsel points out that the charge memo was issued way back in the year 2018. Enquiry was conducted and enquiry report has since been submitted. Show cause notice was issued on that basis. The petitioner has also given his explanation. When the final order is about to be passed, the present writ petition has been filed. He therefore submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶19

Even though objections raised by the learned standing counsel are quite attractive, the contention putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner goes to the root of the matter.

¶20

The petitioner is charged with having contravened the relevant provisions of the Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Act. Admittedly, the said Conduct Rules came into force only in the year 2014. The acquisition of the assets in question was much prior to that. The conduct Rules

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶22

W.P(MD)No.7277 of 2020

¶23

cannot be retrospectively applied. That apart, the petitioner is only a contract employee. During the relevant time, when the asset was acquired, the model standing orders were in force. If at all, only those orders could have been invoked against the petitioner. But they pertained only to the official discharge of duty by the contract employees. The petitioner is not alleged to have caused any loss to the organization. No specific act of irregularity is pointed out. For having acquired an asset which is apparently disproportionate to the known source of income before the Code came into force, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against. The very issuance of the charge memo is without jurisdiction. That is why, even though there is delay on the part of the petitioner, I am still inclined to interfere. The impugned charge memo is quashed.

¶24

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶25

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

04.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/4

¶29

W.P(MD)No.7277 of 2020

¶30

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶31

rmi

¶32

W.P(MD)No.7277 of 2020

¶33

04.11.2022

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

T.Pandian v. the District Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Pandian v. the District Manager

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

K.Rajendran Vs the Chief Executive Officer

L.Priyadharshini Vs The District Educational Officer

Vaiyadurai Vs Eswarasubramanian

P.Kanagaraj at Kannan Vs the District Manager

Jayasankar.S Vs Union Bank of India

Subbulakshmi .a Vs The State of Tamil Nadu