Allowed

S. Rajendran, v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

Madras HC2 Jul 2024WP/30931/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside dismissal orders against a petitioner who failed to prove innocence regarding stock shortage. The Court noted previous remands resulted in enquiries where the department failed to produce evidence, offending natural justice. No further remand was issued; the petitions allowing and connected M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal orders set aside. Writ Petition allowed. Connected Minute Petition closed. No costs.

S. Rajendran, Vs Tamilnadu Civil Supplies — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.30931 of 2015 and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

S.Rajendran

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, represented by its General Manager (Administration), No.12, Thambusammy Road,

¶12

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶13

2.The Regional Manager, Chennai South, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A15/10218/2009 dated 08/10/2014 and the first respondent in Procs. Su.Moo.O.No.AD1/83926/2014 dated

¶15

Page 1 of 13

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶18

20/05/2015 quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages till the date of petitioner's superannuation on 31/05/2014 and thereafter, admitting the petitioner into retirement and pay all the back wages, retiral benefits, pensionary arrears with interest at the rate of 12% from the date on which the amounts became due till date of payment.

¶19

For petitioner : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

¶20

For respondents : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar

¶21

*****

¶22

O RDER

¶23

Challenging the order dated 08.10.2014 passed by the second

¶24

respondent terminating his service, the petitioner is before this Court

¶25

to quash the same and to pass a direction reinstating him with all backwages till his superannuation on 31.05.2014 and thereafter, admitting him into retirement and pay all the backwages, retiral benefits, pensionary arrears with interest at the rate of 12% from the

¶26

date on which the amounts became due till the date of payment.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a

¶28

Page 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶30

Packer in a ration shop bearing Shop no.3 at Arunachalam Street, Chennai, and on 15.07.2009, an inspection was carried out by the Area Manager (Distribution). Pursuant to this, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.07.2009 and on 10.08.2009, he was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,278/- towards the goods which were found shortage.

¶31

Thereafter, on 16.09.2009, the petitioner was issued with

¶32

a charge memo, in which, one charge framed against him was that he had failed to maintain the stock without excess and shortage. On 16.09.2009, he had submitted his explanation for the charges framed against him. However, this explanation was not accepted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer merely summoned the petitioner on 08.12.2009 and enquired him whether he had any explanation to offer. However, without any further enquiry, on 08.12.2009 a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer stating that the petitioner was found guilty of all charges on the ground that he had not disproved the charges by providing

¶33

Page 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶35

evidence. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 13.12.2009

¶36

was issued to the petitioner enclosing the Enquiry Officer's report.

¶37

The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the

¶38

second show cause notice on 16.12.2009 and without even considering this, by a non speaking order, the second respondent had rejected his explanation and imposed the punishment of termination from service on 10.02.2010.

¶39

5. Challenging the said punishment, the petitioner had

¶40

preferred an appeal to the first respondent. By an order dated 05.05.2010, the said order of punishment was confirmed. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25934 of 2010 and when the writ petition was pending, he had also superannuated on 31.05.2014.

¶41

On 10.07.2014, the writ petition was allowed on the

¶42

terms mentioned therein. This Court had held that the procedure

¶43

Page 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶45

adopted by the Enquiry Officer without examining any evidence was erroneous and therefore, this Court had set aside the impugned orders of punishment and the matter was remanded to the authority for conducting a fresh enquiry. The Court had made it clear that a fresh enquiry should be proceeded with after observing the rules.

¶46

After the matter was remitted, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 26.07.2014 to the respondents. However, without even paying the benefits, as there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Service Regulations, the second respondent, by an order dated 19.08.2014, had placed the petitioner under suspension so as to continue with the enquiry and an Enquiry Officer had been appointed and a notice was given to the petitioner for an enquiry to be conducted on 25.08.2014. Later, the enquiry was adjourned and was fixed on 14.09.2014. However, the petitioner had expressed his inability to attend the enquiry and then, the enquiry was conducted on 26.09.2014. Even on the said date, the respondents had neither examined any witness nor marked any

¶47

Page 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶49

documents. Once again, without any enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report on 29.09.2014 and a second show cause notice dated 30.09.2014 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation. The explanation was submitted on 13.11.2014. However, without considering the same, the second respondent, once again, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by an order dated 08.12.2014. The petitioner has been dismissed on the basis of the enquiry report.

¶50

Challenging this dismissal, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent on 13.11.2014. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent on 09.12.2014. Since there was no response to the same, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.3369 of 2015 to dispose of his appeal dated 13.11.2014. By an order dated 11.03.2015, this Court had, issued a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits and pass orders as per law. Thereafter, the first respondent had rushed to pass the order dated 20.05.2005. Challenging the

¶51

Page 6 of 13

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶54

same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶55

The second respondent has filed a counter inter alia contending that they had followed the dicta of this Court by affording opportunities to the petitioner to disprove the charges framed against him. Though the petitioner had attended the enquiry on 26.09.2014, he had refused to peruse the records and to crossexamine the witness and has also given in writing that the enquiry was satisfactory. The respondent, dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, had proceeded to pass the dismissal order based on available records. This Court, in its order dated 10.07.2014, in W.P.No. 25934 of 2010, had observed that the Enquiry Officer's report was bereft of any reasons and the same does not reflect if the principles of natural justice have been followed. In the said order, this Court has directed as follows:

¶56

“....11.In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the authority

¶57

Page 7 of 13

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶60

concerned for fresh consideration on merits by proceeding further complying with the principles of natural justice. I make it very clear that it is open to the respondent Corporation to proceed further in accordance with the rules and regulations, if they so desire, against the petitioner, and complete the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case no proceedings are initiated and the rules are silent to proceed against the petitioner, who is no longer in service, the petitioner should be paid all the terminal benefits including the backwages within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

¶61

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶62

From the records and the reports of the Enquiry Officer

¶63

and the Appellate Officer, it is very clear that no evidence had been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer for coming to a

¶64

Page 8 of 13

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶67

conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of charges. The statement that there has been a shortage and excess has not been substantiated. The Enquiry Officer has clearly erred in shifting the onus of proving the negative upon the petitioner. The respondents had come forward to frame charge against the petitioner that there has been shortage/excess. Therefore, it is for the respondents to prove the same by producing the materials in this regard. However, the very same report has been reproduced once again, for which, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.6,278/- and the charge has not been proved by the respondents. However, a serious punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on him. An appeal which has been filed by the petitioner before the first respondent has also been dismissed by a non speaking order. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner had been taken into consideration. The Appellate Authority has imposed a punishment of dismissal from service as set out hereinbelow.

¶68

“jpU/ v!;/ uhn$e;jpud;. vilahsh;. brd;id (bjw;F) kz;lyk; kPJ Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs;. jdpahpd;

¶69

Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶71

tpsf;fk;. jz;lid Miz. jdpahpd; nky;KiwaPl;L fUj;Jfs; kw;Wk; bjhlh;g[ila Mtz';fs; ed;F Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ Kot[ gpd;tUkhW/ jpU/ v!;/ uhn$e;jpud;. vilahshpd; nky;KiwaPl;L fUj;Jfs; VJk; Vw;Wf; bfhs;sjf;fjhf ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy;. jdpahpd; nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpid jFjpapd;ik mog;gilapy; js;Sgo bra;Jk;. kz;ly nkyhsh;. brd;id (bjw;F) mth;fs; tH';fpa jz;lidahd “jdpaiu gzpePf;fk; bra;j cj;jtpid cWjp bra;J mt;thnw cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ”/ ”

¶72

A mere reading of the above documents would clearly

¶73

show that there is total non-application of mind and despite the orders of this Court, the respondents have not cared to pass a reasoned order. Despite this Court remitting the matter for fresh consideration, in both the enquiries, the respondents have not produced any proof to prove the charges framed by them against the petitioner, especially when the evidence is very much available with them. The Enquiry Officer has proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any proof

¶74

Page 10 of 13

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶77

to show that he is not responsible for the excess/shortage in the

¶78

ration shop.

¶79

Therefore, I see no reason to once again remit the matter especially taking note of the fact that no useful purpose will be served by remitting it back to the authority for fresh consideration. From the available records, it is crystal clear that the allegations made against the petitioner have not been proved by the respondents and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside.

¶80

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently,

¶81

connected M.P. stands closed. No costs.

¶82

02.07.2024

¶83

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa

¶84

Page 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶86

¶87

1.Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, represented by its General Manager (Administration), No.12, Thambusammy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶88

2.The Regional Manager, Chennai South, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086.

¶89

Page 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

P.T.ASHA, J.,

ssa

W.P.No.30931 of 2015

¶94

02.07.2024

¶95

Page 13 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S. Rajendran, v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Rajendran, v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

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

S.L.Maheswari Vs The Vice Chancellor

P.Gandhi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

T.Punniakoti, Vs The Special Officer cum

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

E.Kamalraj Vs The Chairman

V.Kanagam Vs The Chief Executive Officer