Petitioner, a TASMAC contract employee, challenged a charge memo alleging acquisition of disproportionate assets. The Court held that retrospective application of the 2014 Conduct Rules was impermissible and the memo was quashed.
The impugned charge memo was quashed.
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.
W.P(MD)No.7288 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.7288 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6745 & 6746 of 2020
P.Kanagaraj @ Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.
The District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai North, Madurai. ... Respondent
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 Letter/Memo No.1634/15/4 dated 12-18, signed on 17-12-18 and quash th-e same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
W.P(MD)No.7288 of 2020
W.P(MD)No.7288 of 2020
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.
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.11.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi
3/4
W.P(MD)No.7288 of 2020
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
W.P(MD)No.7288 of 2020
04.11.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contract employee can be proceeded against under the Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Act for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income prior to the Code's e
Whether the acquaisition of assets occurred before the mandatory application of the Conduct Rules renders the charge memo without jurisdiction?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Kanagaraj @ Kannan
The District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai North, Madurai
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
