Madras High Court
G.Kannadasan vs The Hon'Ble Principal District Judge on 11 July, 2019
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, C.Saravanan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.473 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.479 and 482 of 2019
G.Kannadasan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge,
Thiruvarur,
Thiruvarur District.
2. The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras.
(The second respondent impleaded
vide order dated 12.02.2019 made in
W.M.P.No.4099 of 2019 in W.P.No.473 of 2019)
.. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating
to the administrative order dated 21.06.2018 made in D.No.3362 passed by the
first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent(s)
to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attended benefits.
For petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by R.Subbiah, J) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the administrative order (Return Endorsement) dated 21.06.2018 made in D.No.3362 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent(s) to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attended benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is as follows:
(a) The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the month of January 2006 in Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvarur by the first respondent and subsequently was transferred to several other Courts. On 09.02.2011, he was promoted and transferred to the post of Process Server.
(b) While he was in service, a criminal case was foisted against him under Section 302 IPC on the allegation that he had murdered his wife on 06.04.2013.
The petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 07.04.2013 and subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service on 19.09.2013 and thereafter, he had worked as Process Server in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Valangaiman. After trial in the said criminal case, by judgment dated 19.03.2015 made in Sessions Case No.31 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 of 2014, he was found guilty and convicted under Section 304(i) IPC by the Court of Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvarur and sentenced to undergo punishment of rigorous imprisonment of seven years and was also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.
(c) Immediately, the petitioner was suspended from service and a show- cause-notice, dated 26.03.2015 was issued to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings shall not be commenced against him. Pursuant to the abovesaid conviction, by proceedings in A.No.229/2015, dated 17.04.2015, the first respondent dismissed him from service with immediate effect by invoking the provisions of Rule 17(c)(i)(1) of the Tami Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
(d) In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.177 of 2015 on the file of this Court, challenging the said conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.31 of 2014. This Court, by judgment dated 02.01.2018, allowed the said Criminal Appeal, resultantly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, were set aside. On receipt of the said judgment, the petitioner made a representation on 30.01.2018 to the first respondent seeking reinstatement into service. But the said representation was returned by the first respondent, by making endorsement on the same on 21.06.2018, stating that in the judgment dated 02.01.2018 made in Crl.A.No.177 of 2015, this Court had not passed any order with regard to the petitioner's reinstatement into service. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
(e) On receipt of the said return order/endorsement, dated 21.06.2018, the petitioner has also made another representation on 25.06.2018 stating that he was dismissed from service only on the ground that the trial Court had convicted him in Sessions Case No.31 of 2014, dated 19.03.2015 by the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvarur and also requested the respondent to reinstate him into service, since the ground of dismissal is not available as on date. Inspite of receipt of the said representation, till this date, no action had been taken by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
3. When the Writ Petition is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions adverting to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation was not considered on merits.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by filing counter affidavit of the first respondent, submitted that the said order of dismissal was passed by the first respondent against the petitioner under Rule 17(c)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as against which, no appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the said Rules. The present claim of reinstatement by the petitioner in view of acquittal in the said Criminal Appeal, is not automatic and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Though the petitioner was acquitted from the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 charge(s), the same is not an honourable acquittal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the endorsement made by the first respondent in respect of the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.01.2018 in D.No.3362, dated 21.06.2018, is only a "return endorsement" and it is not an administrative order, though the petitioner has couched in the prayer portion in the Writ Petition that it is an administrative order. The only option available to the petitioner is to file appeal as against the order of dismissal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner ought to have exhausted the alternative remedy of filing appeal as against the order of dismissal, before filing this Writ Petition. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. After hearing the submissions made on either side and on a perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is seen that the representation of the petitioner dated 30.01.2018, was returned by the first respondent by making the Endorsement on 21.06.2018 stating that in the Criminal Appeal in which the petitioner was acquitted of the charge(s), no direction was given to reinstate the petitioner into service. But, it is common knowledge that there will not be any direction with regard to the reinstatement of an employee in the Criminal Appeal. Under such circumstances, the first respondent ought to have entertained the representation, dated 30.01.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, whereas, the first respondent had returned the representation stating that there is no direction in the Criminal Appeal to http://www.judis.nic.in 6 reinstate the petitioner. Hence, the impugned return endorsement, dated 21.06.2018 is not proper.
6. Hence, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to again re-present his representation, dated 30.01.2018, further after rectifying the defects, if any and on receipt of such re-presentation by the petitioner, the first respondent-Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur is directed to consider the same and dispose of the said representation, dated 30.01.2018 and also the further representation made on 25.06.2018, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of such re- presentation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the Criminal Appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is only for the first respondent to decide the same at the time of disposing of the said representation, purely on merits.
7. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.Ps. are closed.
(R.P.S.J) (C.S.N.J)
11.07.2019
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes
cs
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
To
1. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge,
Thiruvarur,
Thiruvarur District.
2. The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
R.SUBBIAH,J
and
C.SARAVANAN, J
cs
W.P.No.473 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
11.07.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in