Madras High Court
R.Karuppiah vs The Managing Director on 27 November, 2018
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 03.10.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P(MD)Nos.6069 and 6236 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).No.6069 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).No.6236 of 2012
R.Karuppiah .. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.6069/2012
A.Rajagopal .. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.6236/2012
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC),
No.12, Thanbusamy Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai -10.
2.The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC),
Kalyanaramapuram 1st Street,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC),
Kalyanaramapuram 1st Street,
Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents in
both the petitions
PRAYER in W.P.(MD).No.6069 of 2012: Writ Petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in
Rc.E2/0415/2009(2), dated 18.05.2010 and quash the same as illegal
and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to promote the
petitioner as Superintendent notionally with effect from the date on
which his juniors were promoted with all attended monetary benefits
within a stipulated period.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD).No.6236 of 2012: Writ Petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in
Rc.E2/0415/2009-1, dated 18.05.2010 and the consequential rejection
order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Sey.Ma.Aa.En.AT.
1/102127/2010, dated 01.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as
Superintendent notionally with effect from the date on which his juniors
were promoted with all attended monetary benefits.
For petitioner in
both the petitions : Mr.Imam,
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For respondents in
both the petitions : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD).No.6069 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 18.05.2010, imposing stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as Superintendent notionally with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all service and monetary benefits.
2. W.P.(MD).No.6236 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 18.05.2010, imposing stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect and also the order passed by the 1st respondent / appellate authority confirming the order dated 18.05.2010 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as Assistant Manager notionally with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all service and monetary benefits.
3. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are interrelated to each other, both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. While the petitioners were working as Assistant and Superintendent respectively, the third respondent issued a separate charge memo to the petitioners and two others viz., Deputy Manager (A/c) and Assistant Quality Inspector, alleging that they did not make proper scrutiny over the claim of a Contractor which lead to erroneous payment. The petitioners submitted their explanations to the charges framed against them. Not satisfying with the said explanations, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioners stood proved. The petitioners have also submitted their further explanations. However, the 2nd respondent, vide his proceedings dated 18.05.2010, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect on the petitioners. As the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.6069 of 2012 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010, he could not able to file appeal within time and after getting the retirement benefits, he has filed this writ petition challenging the punishment order. The petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.6236 of 2012 has subsequently filed an appeal as against the punishment order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 18.05.2010 and the same was rejected on 01.08.2011 by the first respondent and then, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011 and after getting retirement benefits, he filed this writ petition challenging the said orders.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the contractor, who was said to have made false claim which was approved by the petitioners without verification, was blacklisted by the second respondent and as against that order, he has approached the first respondent. After careful scrutiny, the first respondent has allowed the same stating that the transport contractor has not made any bogus claim and the amount of Rs.1,67,540/- was rightly paid to him. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is no erroneous payment made to the Transport contractor and the same was admitted by the first respondent and hence, the imposition of punishment on the petitioners is not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that though similar charges have been issued to two other employees viz., Deputy Manager (A/c) and Assistant Quality Inspector, they have been punished with “Censure” and “Warning” respectively, whereas the petitioners were punished with stoppage of increment and since the respondents have shown discrimination in imposition of punishment, the punishment imposed on the petitioners are liable to be set aside. He would further contend that due to imposition of such punishment, the petitioners could not get further promotion and therefore, they should be promoted notionally and provided with consequential benefits. Thus, he prayed to allow this writ petition. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the charges framed against the petitioners are entirely different from that of the Transport Contractor. Though the entire proceedings emanated from the particular movement and the clearance of its bill, the petitioners were charged for their negligence in dealing with the bill with improper documentation. Therefore, they cannot claim any benefit based on the order passed by the first respondent in respect of the contractor.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the charges framed against the Deputy Manager (Accounts) and the Assistant Quality Inspector were simple in nature and based on their role, they were given “Censure” and “Warning”. The charges issued to the petitioners were grave in nature and therefore, they cannot compare themselves with the others. Thus, he prayed to dismiss both the writ petitions.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records carefully.
10. It is seen from the record that the non FCI Internal / External Transport Contractor M/s.Sri Balaji Transports for the year 2007-08 has made a transport charge claim for Rs.1,67,540/- on 29.08.2008 and http://www.judis.nic.in 7 subsequently, payment was made to the said Contractor. Later on, it was found that the Transport Contractor has preferred a false claim for the movement he did not do, based on the technical flaw in the preparation of the documents at Alangudi Godown and the petitioners and two others, without verifying the voucher, have made erroneous payment. As stated by the respondents, the petitioners should have verified all the documents and followed the proceedings issued then and there, and they cannot shirk their responsibility saying that they did not aware of the proceedings. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioners.
11. As far as the first contention is concerned, it is seen that by order dated 08.04.2010, the first respondent has set aside the blacklisting order passed by the second respondent holding that the contractor has not made any bogus claim and Thirumayam Co-operative society has separately paid transport charges for the movement actually carried out by them. But, based on the said decision, it cannot be held that the act of the petitioners were correct. As rightly stated by the respondents, the petitioners have failed to make proper documentation and verify the claim made by the Contractor and if they verified with the documents properly and enquired, the claim of the Contractor wrongly made before them could have been found out and thwarted. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reject the first contention of the learned counsel http://www.judis.nic.in 8 for the petitioners.
12. Admittedly, the charges levelled against each petitioner more or less same. Whereas, the charges levelled against the other two employees viz., Deputy Manager (Accounts) and the Assistant Quality Inspector differed from the petitioners. It is not in dispute that they played different role. It is seen that according to the charges levelled against them and the role played by them, the second respondent has imposed the punishment. Therefore, as rightly stated by the respondents, the petitioners cannot claim equality or discrimination in the punishment. This Court does not find any arbitrariness in the punishment imposed on the petitioners and the other two employees viz., Deputy Manager (Accounts) and the Assistant Quality Inspector. Hence, this Court is of the view that the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be sustained.
13. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are also dismissed.
27.11.2018
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
gcg
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC), No.12, Thanbusamy Road, http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Kilpauk, Chennai -10.
2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC), Kalyanaramapuram 1st Street, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC), Kalyanaramapuram 1st Street, Pudukkottai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 J.NISHA BANU, J gcg Common Order made in W.P(MD)Nos.6069 and 6236 of 2012 27.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in