Madras High Court
J.Premalatha vs The Chief Engineer/Distribution on 11 June, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.5325 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.15917 of 2017
J.Premalatha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution
TANDEDCO, K.Pudur,
Madurai-7.
2.Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Metro, K.Pudur,
Madurai-7. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order dated 12.04.2011 passed by the first
respondent in Memo No.001972/49/D3/2011-1 confirming the order
dated 21.12.2010 passed by the second respondent in Memo No.
441-2/cepm/epgp2.c4/nfh.8(v)/2010 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Irulappan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The order of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner originally by the disciplinary authority and modified and reduced punishment issued by the Appellate Authority, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Meter and Relay Test/Metro, TANGEDCO, Madurai. The petitioner was sent on an official trip to Chennai and while returning back to Madurai through Podhigai Express at about 5.50 a.m., on 10.09.2010, the travel bag kept by the petitioner was found stolen. The writ petitioner kept his personal belongings as well as the MRT Sealing Plier and all those articles were missing. Immediately, the writ petitioner reported the matter to the Sub- Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Madurai and a receipt was also issued on 10.09.2010 bearing C.S.R.No.2779308. However, on 29.09.2010, the police issued a Non-Traceable Certificate. The petitioner informed the same to the competent authorities.
3.In spite of these facts, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the writ petitioner under Rule 8(a) of the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Discipline and Appeal Rules. On receipt of the explanation from the writ petitioner, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent/ Chief Engineer, who in turn modified the punishment by reducing the same to stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. The said order is also under challenge.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the writ petitioner was on an official trip and he was entrusted with the Board file viz., MRT Sealing Plier. When the important instrument was missing, the respondents were bound to initiate appropriate action against the officials. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer must be more cautious in maintaining and protecting the MRT Sealing Plier.
5.This Court is of the considered opinion that the fact remains that the writ petitioner was travelling in a train from Chennai to Madurai. Further, the fact reveals that the bag kept by the writ petitioner in the train was stolen during his travel. The writ petitioner promptly filed a police complaint with the Railway police. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 The case was closed as not traceable. Though it is an unfortunate event, the MRT Sealing Plier was unable to be recovered. On account of the fact that that the Police Department had closed the criminal case. Under these circumstances, the entire event occurred beyond the control of the writ petitioner, for which, the writ petitioner cannot be penalized. Certain circumstances arising beyond the control of the officials cannot be held against them. The genuinity of the explanations are also to be considered. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation along with the documents stating that he travelled in the train by way of an official trip and the bag was stollen and the same was informed to the police. Immediately, a criminal case was also registered and closed as not traceable. This being the factum, imposing the punishment is undoubtedly unreasonable and unwarranted. The offence of theft occurred in a train cannot be a cause for imposing the punishment on a Government servant under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
6.Under these circumstance, this Court is unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents. The writ petitioner's claim deserves to be considered. Accordingly, the order passed by the second respondent in Memo No. 441-2/cepm/epgp2.c4/nfh.8(v)/2010 dated 21.12.2010 as well as the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 appellate order passed by the first respondent in Memo No. 001972/49/D3/2011-1, dated 12.04.2011 are quashed.
7.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.06.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns To
1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution TANDEDCO, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
2.Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Metro, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Ns W.P.(MD)No.5325 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 and W.M.P.(MD).No.15917 of 2017 11.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in