Madras High Court
Smt.S.Mangalam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on: 25.10.2018
Pronounced on: 27.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD) No.14485 of 2011 and
M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011
Smt.S.Mangalam
W/o.Selvam,
Nilayur, Brahmanavoyal Post,
Manamelgudi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 104.
2. The State Project Co-ordinator,
World Bank Aided Child Welfare Development Scheme,
3rd Project, Tharamani,
Chennai-600 113.
3. The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
4. The Project Officer,
District Committee,
Child Welfare Co-ordination Scheme,
Pudukottai District.
5. The Project Officer,
Child Welfare Development Scheme,
Manamelgudi Taluk and Post,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to Na.Ka.No.319/99 dated 19.11.1999 passed by the 5th
respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper and thereby direct the
5th respondent to re-instate the petitioner into service with all back wages
and benefits.
For Petitioner : Party-in-Person
Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
(Withdrawn his Vakalath)
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
Govt. Advocate
*****
ORDER
“Lying is done with words, and also with silence.”
- Adrienne Rich, Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying This case is a perfect example, in which, the petitioner, who adopted a tricky method to play fraud on the Court and Public, belied both in words and silence and finally landed up in problem by herself.
2. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.319/99, by which, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner also sought a direction to the 5th respondent to re-instate her into service with all back wages and benefits.
Brief Facts:
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. The case of the petitioner was that she joined as Second Grade Anganvadi employee in Noon Meal Scheme in Manamelgudi Taluk and on 28.06.1999, she was placed under suspension on the following reasonings:
(a) At the time of inspection on 24.06.1999, she was not present in the centre and does not regularly come to the centre;
(b) She has not assembled the children and not taking them into the centre; and
(c) She has prepared the noon meals in the cow shed in an unhealthy manner.
3.1. It was the further case of the petitioner that she had submitted her leave letter by post to the 5th respondent on 23.06.1999 and that she had availed leave with prior permission, which was denied by the 5th respondent. The copy of suspension order was not served to her, but was put up in the notice board, which forced her to file a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No.4388 of 2010 and since there was no representation, when the case was called, the said writ petition was heard exparte and dismissed, against which, she has preferred a Writ Appeal.
3.2. It was submitted that subsequently, she came to know that she was removed from service permanently with effect from 19.11.1999 by the 5th respondent without affording any opportunity of hearing and in the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 order of termination, the 5th respondent had given the following reasons for her termination:
(a) She did not come for work to the centre from 28.06.1999;
(b) She had visited abroad without any information or notice and therefore, she had been permanently removed from service on the basis of the Government Letter Na.Ka.No.92993/93/A.Te.2 dated 23.03.1994 Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme Department, Chennai.
According to the petitioner, the removal order was simply placed in the Office Notice Board without effecting proper service to her.
3.3. It was further submitted that on enquiry, it was found that based on the letter dated 03.09.1999, given by her husband stating that his wife had gone to Singapore 45 days before, she was terminated from service. But the fact remains that on 07.07.1999, the Supervisor had requested the 5th respondent to initiate action against her for not handing over food materials and the records to one In-charge Cook and therefore, it is evident that she is in India only. It was the stand of the petitioner that her husband had signed on the blank paper in the ration shop for obtaining some gifts, which was misused at the instance of one Banumathi. Stating that the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent is against the principles of natural justice and arbitrary in nature, she prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
4. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been inter alia stated as follows:
i) the petitioner worked as Second Grade Anganwadi Employee in ICDS Centre in Gopalapuram School, Manamelkudi Taluk and was placed under suspension from 28.06.1999 for certain irregularities and on the information received that she had visited a foreign country without any intimation, she was removed from service. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a representation to cancel the termination order and for re-employment on after a lapse of seven years. Insofar as Anganwadi workers are concerned, there is no rule or provision framed for their and the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules will not be applicable to the petitioner, as Anganwadi employees are part time employees.
ii) the petitioner, in order to overcome her absence, had wrongly stated that she was not well on the date of inspection, namely, 23.06.1999 without knowing the actual date of inspection as 20.06.1999.
When a notice was served at her residence for her long absence, it came to light that she had gone to Singapore to work as Labour, which fact was also confirmed by the Village Public. As per the instructions issued in Government Letter No.92903/93/Social Welfare Department 2 dated 23.03.1994, a Noon Meal organizer can be suspended and removed from http://www.judis.nic.in 6 service, if he / she is continuously absent from service for more than two months. It was further stated that after removal from service, the petitioner has no right to demand subsistence allowance and re- employment as a matter of right and therefore, it was pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
5. It appears from the records that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.07.2018, the petitioner, apart from contending that she was illegally dismissed from service, stated that she had not gone abroad and had produced a Passport No.F0923496 dated 14.06.2004, in which there was no endorsement about her travel. Since this Court (Justice R.Suresh Kumar) had some doubts over the production of the Passport, Police was directed to conduct an investigation, pursuant to which, a report was filed by the Police, stating that the travel of the petitioner to a foreign country by using some other person's Passport is true. When the petitioner smelt rat in her conduct, pursuant to the mention made before this Court (Justice V.Parthiban) for withdrawal of the Writ Petition, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.08.2018. Subsequently, learned Additional Government Pleader had brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Judge about the earlier order passed by this Court and also the fraud played by the petitioner, on account of which, the order of withdrawal dated 07.08.2018 was recalled, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 thereby the matter was restored on its original file. Since the said Hon'ble Judge was sitting on stop gap arrangement, on the orders of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge (Justice T.Raja), the matter was ordered to be listed before me under the caption “Specially Ordered”.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he, on coming to know of the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed him about her travel abroad and she had made a wrong statement, has decided to withdraw from the case so as to retain his reputation and requested the party to appear in-person to represent her case. Despite the counsel's instruction, the petitioner did not choose to appear before this Court on 04.10.2018 and therefore, this Court had issued a Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner for casting her appearance. Consequent to issuance of NBW, the petitioner was present before this Court on 05.10.2018 and had stated that on the wrong guidance of an Agent, she had not disclosed the factum of her travel abroad. When this Court posed a question as to who was the Agent, who misguided her, it was replied that the said Agent is no more.
7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has strenuously contended that the petitioner has approached http://www.judis.nic.in 8 this Court with unclean hands and besides committing several irregularities in her work, she had visited Singapore without obtaining any prior permission from the Government, that too, in somebody's Passport. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, much less the grant of subsistence allowance and the person like the petitioner has to be dealt with stringently so that it could be a lesson to those, who approach the Courts with untrue facts.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side, including the petitioner, who was present in-person before this Court and also perused all relevant documents placed before this Court, including various orders passed by this Court in respect of the present case.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the service as Second Grade Anganvadi Employee in Noon Meal Scheme and remained absent for several days without intimation, pursuant to which, she was placed under suspension on account of such irregularities. Later on, the 5th respondent, on the basis of the letter written by the husband of the petitioner, came to know of the fact that she had gone to Singapore, which forced the 5th respondent to remove her from service. It seems that after a lapse of seven years, she had submitted a representation, questioning her http://www.judis.nic.in 9 termination and subsequently, filed the present writ petition, challenging the order of termination. When the petitioner was apprised that this Court had taken serious note of her travel abroad by using her relative's Passport, she, apprehending a sense of danger, has decided to withdraw the Writ Petition.
10. From the letter dated 31.07.2018 written by the petitioner herself in Tamil, which was forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Registry, seeking withdrawal of the case, it could be seen that the petitioner had accepted her guilt of travelling abroad by using some other person's Passport. The gist of the letter reads as follows:
“ehd; j';fsplk; nkw;go tHf;F rk;ke;jkhf btspehl;Lf;F nghftpy;iy vd;W jtwhd jfty;fis bfhLj;J tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;njd;/ ,d;W rp';fg;g{Uf;F ntbwhU egUila mf;fhs; kUkfs;
(uhf;fk;khs;) vd;w bgaUs;s flt[r;rPl;L K:ykhf btspa{Uf;F brd;W te;jij xg;g[f;bfhs;fpnwd;/ Mfnt ,e;j tHf;if nkw;bfhz;L elj;jhky; thg!; bgw ntz;Lk; vd;W nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,d;W tHf;fpd; Mtz';fs; midj;ija[k; bgw;Wf;bfhz;nld;/”
11. The basic principle is that a person, who secured either an administrative order or judicial order by fraud, cannot be allowed to enjoy its fruits and the fraud is an extrinsic, collateral act, which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice, as it avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical and temporal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of http://www.judis.nic.in 10 S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, observed as under:
"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, Bank loan dodgers, and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”
12. The petitioner, having found that she cannot escape from the clutches of law, has stated in the Open Court that out of ignorance and misguidance, she had committed such a wrong and a plea has been made that she, being a poor lady eking out her livelihood out of her hard labour, may be pardoned for her act and be let her go scotfree. In view of her own admission, the statement, made by her husband that on the blank paper duly signed by him, the authority concerned has filled up untrue stories, has become absolutely invalid.
13. As per the direction issued by this Court, the Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Circle, Pudukkottai District has filed a Status Report dated 21.08.2018, inter alia stating as under:
"4. I humbly submit the fact to the question raised in Page No.2 Para No.3(ii). The petitioner had gone Singapore in the name of Rakkammal wife of Mariyappan Nilaiyur by http://www.judis.nic.in 11 utilizing the Ration Card of the said Rakkammal i.e. by making a fake Passport through an Agent named Selvaraj of Pattukkottai in the year 2000. The fake passport has been confiscated by the Singapore Police and this is not available with the petitioner. I humbly submit that I will take effort to secure the fake passport in the name of Rakkammal which utilized by the petitioner Tmt.S.Mangalam by sending a requisition letter to the Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli at the earliest.
5. I humbly submit the fact to the question raised in Page No.2 Para No.3(iii). On 20.06.1999, the petitioner Tmt.S.Mangalam was suspended from duty and the suspension order had been retained fro more than 7 months in which she remained in home at Village. Subsequently, after 7 months period of suspension, she went Singapore in the year 2000 and it is proved in the statements of the petitioner's relatives 1) Tmt.Rajeswari w/o.Pazhani, Nilaiyur,
2) Tr.K.V.Saravanan, s/o. Kandavel, Nilaiyur and 3) Sundaram s/o.Veerappan, Nilaiyur, the V.A.O. of Nilaiyur Revenue Circle named Tr.Pothiraj and a Co-Worker of the petitioner named Tmt.Amirthavalli of Pathakkadu.”
14. From the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner has, knowingly and wantonly, misled the Court with an intention to get her termination order quashed and had the petition been allowed without Police report, it would definitely pass on a wrong message to the Public at large and induce every citizen of this Court to indulge in such activities of cheating. Though the petitioner, being an Anganwadi worker, is a part time employee and is not governed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as stated by the respondents in the counter, the petitioner must have at least maintained http://www.judis.nic.in 12 absolute integrity and devotion to duty and there should not even be a fraction of deviation. The petitioner has forgotten to remember the sentence that work is worship and the same has to be executed with all faithfulness. The only way to do great work is to love what you do and it is rather better to quit the job than to do it without interest.
15. In fine, in view of what is stated herein-above, I find that there are no merits in the writ petition and that the person like the petitioner should be dealt with stringently in order to repose confidence in the minds of the public with regard to the impartial justice delivery system. This Court, while dismissing the present writ petition, is constrained to pass the following orders:
i) Since it is a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court by the petitioner in attempting to hoodwink the Court, severe punishment of imprisonment of not less than two months could be ordered, but however, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a lady, this Court directs the concerned jurisdictional Police to arrest the petitioner and remand her to judicial custody to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and inform her custody to the Registrar General of the Principal Seat of Madras High Court;
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
ii) The concerned Passport Authorities are directed to cancel, if not already cancelled and seize the Passport bearing No.F0923496, purported to have been issued to the petitioner;
iii) It is open to the Passport Authorities to conduct investigation and to take necessary action against the petitioner for traveling abroad with the fake Passport and it is also open to them to conduct enquiry on the relative of the petitioner, who has given her Passport to the petitioner for her visit to Singapore, apart from cancelling her Passport too;
iv) Ration Card, if any given by the Government to the petitioner and her relative, who parted with the Passport to the petitioner, shall be immediately withdrawn and she shall not be permitted to avail any benefit from the State. The Government shall ensure that they will not be issued with any fresh ration card in any of the ration shop in Tamil Nadu, in case of change of their residence / address to a newer place and the first respondent shall send a communication to the concerned Department in this regard, but at the same time, there is no impediment for the family members of the petitioner and her relative to avail the benefits from the Government;
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
v) As the petitioner has been residing in the given address, as per the direction issued by this Court in the earlier interim order dated 25.10.2018, she must furnish the details of her travel in case she decides to move outside her present territory and in the event of the petitioner shifting her residence, she is directed to furnish the full particular of her new address not only to the jurisdictional Police where she is residing at present, but also to the concerned jurisdictional Police, where she is going to shift, along with a copy of this order;
vi) It is suggested that in order to prevent the persons, fleeing away from justice and migrating to an alien country, after availing loan from the Finance Company / Bank and without repaying it, the Government is expected to modify the rules, regarding surrender of Passport of the person availing loan, to the concerned Institution, from whom loan is availed so that the jurisdictional Court may be aware of non-repayment of the loan amount and person will not be allowed to travel abroad without the knowledge of such financial institutions. It can also be made clear that till the loan is cleared, the Passport will not be handed over to the person and in case of failure in repayment of amount, the Passport may be temporarily cancelled. Passport Act and Rules can also be amended to the effect that in case of renewal of Passport, necessary endorsement should be http://www.judis.nic.in 15 obtained from the Banks / Financial Institutions or suitable orders should be obtained from the jurisdictional Court or appropriate Forum. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.12.2018 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar Note: Issue order copy on 02.01.2019 Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to,
1) Regional Passport Officer, Hudco Trikoot-3, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
2) Regional Passport Officer, Royala Towers Nos.2 & 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
3) Regional Passport Officer,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai-625 002.
4) The Superintendent of Police, ] They are directed to instruct the
Pudukkottai District. ] concerned jurisdictional Station
] House Officer for arresting the
5) The Commissioner of Police, ] petitioner to undergo Simple
Madurai District. ] Imprisonment for one week.
http://www.judis.nic.in
16
S.VAIDYANATHAN.J.,
ar
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Social Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 104.
2. The State Project Co-ordinator,
World Bank Aided Child Welfare Development Scheme, 3rd Project, Tharamani, Chennai-600 113.
3. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
4. The Project Officer, District Committee, Child Welfare Co-ordination Scheme, Pudukottai District.
5. The Project Officer, Child Welfare Development Scheme, Manamelgudi Taluk and Post, Pudukottai District.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.(MD) No.14485 of 2011 27.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in