Dismissed

K.C.Ravichandran v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP/957/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a departmental punishment order involving stoppage of increment for six months. The court observed that the charge of failing to insure goods resulting in fire loss was proved. The court held that relief granted in surcharge proceedings did not bar departmental action as lack of willful negligence there did not negate misconduct in departmental proceedings. The writ petit

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without costs.

K.C.Ravichandran Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.957 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.957 of 2022

K.C.Ravichandran

... Petitioner

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order of the respondent passed in G.O.(D) No.145 dated 29.10.2021 and quash in so far as punishment passed on charge No.2 and consequently direct the respondent to restore the seniority promotion and to give all service monetary and attendant benefits. Peponderance

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Prabakaran Government Advocate

1/7

W.P.No.957 of 2022

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the Impugned Order of the respondent passed in G.O.(D) No.145 dated 29.10.2021 and quash in so far as punishment passed on charge No.2 and consequently direct the respondent to restore the seniority promotion and to give all service monetary and attendant benefits.

¶18

Callenging the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect in a departmental proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court. There are two charges framed against the writ petitioner. Charge No.1 is that he has not taken any action agianst the persons who have already directed to be relieved from post. Charge No.2 is that he has failed to insure the computer and other goods in the godown and the same has been distroyed in a fire accident and thereby caused loss to the socieity to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/. In the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the charge No.1 has not been proved and it is held that charge no.2 has been proved. Based on the disciplinary proceedings, the authorities imposed

¶19

2/7

¶20

W.P.No.957 of 2022

¶21

punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect.

¶22

The main contention of the writ petitioner before this Court is that in a surcharge proceedings initiated under section 87 Tamilnadu Cooperatie Societies Act, the writ petitioner has been relieved in respect of the same charges. However, there is no evidence available to fix the responsibility of the writ petitioner for not insuring the goods said to have been destroyed in the fire accident. Therefore, it is his contention that imposing of punishment is without any basis and evidence, and the disciplinary authority consiered irrelevant materials.

¶23

Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶24

submitted that in the enquiry, it is established that the writ petitioner is a Special Officer and it is his responsibility to see that the goods have been properly insured. He has failed to to do so. Hence, opposed the Writ Petition.

¶25

3/7

¶26

W.P.No.957 of 2022

¶27

I have perused entire materials. In the departmental proceedings, charge No.2 has been proved against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is that he has failed to insure the goods in the godown which resulted in loss to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/- in a fire accident. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Special Officer at the relevant point of time and in fact he has passed an Order dated 17.01.2023 for shifting the building to some other place and while shifting he has given directions for shifting the goods in the medical shop. However, he has not taken any steps to insure the goods. This charge has been proved based on his responsibility as a Special Officer. The only contention of the petitioner is that in a similar charge, the petitioner has been relieved from the enquiry under section 87 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act.

¶28

I have also perused the enquiry report under section 87 of the Cooperative Societies Act. He has been relieved from the proceedings only on the ground that there is no willful negligence established against the petitioner. Therefore, he has been relieved from the Surcharge

¶29

4/7

¶30

W.P.No.957 of 2022

¶31

proceedings, wherein the finding also clearly indicate he has shirked his responsibility in insuring the goods. It is also recorded to the effect that the shifting of the godown is not informed to the petitioner. Only in that context, he has been relieved from the Surcharge proceedings on the ground that there is no willful negligence which is sina quo non to maintain the procedings under section 87 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that such a finding will not have any bearing in a departmental proceedings. As far as the departmental proceedings is concerned, charges has to be seen in proper perspective and to be seen on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. When the petitioner, being the Special Officer, has failed to monitor the things in the office where he has to suprevise, it cannot be said that the charges have not been made out.

¶32

On a perusal of entire materials, this Court could not find any perversity to hold that the disciplinary authority considered irrelevant materials and recorded a finding. Futher, it is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity has been given to him in the departmental

¶33

5/7

¶34

W.P.No.957 of 2022

¶35

enquiry. In such view of the matter, this Court exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence recorded in a departmental proceedings and the punishment is not excess or unreasonable. Hence, I do not find any gound to interfere with the impugned Order.

¶36

Accodingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶37

02.08.2023

¶38

Index:Yes/No

¶39

Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶40

vrc

¶41

To,

¶42

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

6/7

¶44

W.P.No.957 of 2022

¶45

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶46

vrc

¶47

WP.No.957 of 2022

¶48

02.08.2023

¶49

7/7

K.C.Ravichandran v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Ravichandran v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Naveen Vs The District Collector

E.Thanappan Vs The Chief Engineer / Personal

Mr. K.Senthilkumar Vs TamilNadu State Transport corporation

V.Jaisankar Vs Director of Medical Education

M.Vinayagamurthy Vs the State Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Home

V.Jayaprakash Vs the Chairman