Madras High Court
P.Radha Krishnan vs The Deputy General Manager on 6 March, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No.3690 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
P.Radha Krishnan,
Senior Supervisor (Civil),
Type V, House No.11, T.N.C.Colony,
Tamil Nadu Cements Post,
Alangulam-626 127,
Rajapalayam Viz.,
Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
(A Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking)
Alangulam Works,
Tamil Nadu Cements Post-626 127,
Rajapalayam Via., Virudhunagar District.
2.Mr.Arunachalam,
Advocate/Enquiry Officer,
No.275/4, Dr.Suresh Kumar Complex,
Main Road, Sattur-626 203,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the second respondent
in proceedings dated 02.03.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct
the Respondents to proceed with the enquiry only after affording opportunity
to the petitioner to assistance of a Lawyer in the domestic enquiry.
!For Petitioner :Mrs.Chamundibose
^For R1 : Mr.A.Sivaji
For R2 : Mr.P.Mahadevan
:ORDER
The order of rejection issued by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 02.03.2013 not permitting the writ petitioner to bring an Advocate as an observer in the Departmental Domestic proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition.
2.The writ petitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Civil) in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited (TANCEM) on 02.12.1994 and subsequently, promoted as Senior Supervisor (Civil) on 30.12.2009. Though the writ petitioner has made an attempt to narrate the counter charges against the management, this Court is of an opinion that the present writ petition is in relation to the order of rejection issued by the respondents for grant of an observer in favour of the writ petitioner. Thus, the counter allegations in respect of certain misappropriation took place in the management, may not have relevance in respect of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petitioner has made an attempt to raise certain counter allegations. However, those allegations are unconnected with the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner.
3.On initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner was under suspension and a charge memo was issued on 08.01.2013. The charges against the writ petitioner are as under:-
?25.12.2012k; Njjpad;W jpU v];.ehfuh[d;> Jiz NkyhsH (gzp & epH) mtHfs; miwapy; gfy; RkhH 11.45 kzpastpy; ekJ Miyapd; epyk; rk;ge;jg;gl;l Mtzq;fis jpU.vk;.khhpag;gd;> rPdpaH ilg;gp];l; mtHfSld; jahH nra;J nfhz;bUe;j nghOJ ePq;fs; cjtp ghJfhg;G mjpfhhp mtHfSld; thf;Fthjk; nra;Ak; Nehf;fj;jpy; cuj;j rg;jj;Jld; fPo;fz;lthW jpU v];.ehfuh[d;> Jiz NkyhsH (gzp & epH) mtHfis jpl;bAs;sPHfs;.
?vtDf;Fk; ve;j gaYf;Fk; MNs mDg;gf;$lhJ> J}q;fhid vg;gb mDg;GwPq;f? G.M.tPl;Lf;F jtpu NtW ahU tPl;Lf;Fk; Ms; mDg;ghjPq;f. J}q;fhid xU gay; tPl;Lf;Fk; mDg;gf;$lhJ ,ij ehd; nrhd;djh vtd; Nfl;lhYk; nrhy;Yq;f. UhjhfpU\;zd; nrhd;dhd;D vtd; Nfl;lhYk; nrhy;Yq;f. ve;jg;gaYk; ve;j fz;lhuNthypAk; vd;id Nfl;fl;Lk;? vd;W Mghr thh;ijfshy; jpl;bAs;sPHfs;.
NkYk; ePq;fs; cq;fsJ gphptpy; cq;fSf;F gzpf;fg;gl;bUe;j gzpapid Gwf;fzpj;Jtpl;L Njitapy;yhky; epHthf mYtyfk; nrd;wpUf;fpwPHfs;. mq;F Mz;fSk; ngz;fSk; Mf ,UghyUk; mt;tYtfj;jpy; Ntiynra;Ak; #o;epiyapy; nfhQ;rKk; ehfhPfkpd;wp ele;Jnfhz;ljdhy; md;whl mYty;fs; eilngWtjpy; jlq;fy;fs; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. ,jd;%yk; Miyapd; xOf;f khz;GfSf;F Fe;jfKk;> gzpahsHfspilNa mr;r czHitAk; Vw;gLj;jpAs;sPHfs;. Nkw;gb cq;fsJ elj;ijapdhy; murhq;fj;jpw;Fr; nrhe;jkhd ,t;thiyapd; ew;ngaUf;F fsq;fk; Vw;gLj;jpaJ kl;Lky;yhky; Miyapd; nghJ mikjpf;F gq;fk; Vw;glTk; nra;jpUf;fpwPHfs;.?
4.Another set of charge memo was also issued on 08.01.2013 and yet another charge memo was issued vide proceedings, dated 18.03.2013.
5.The allegations are in relation to the alleged misconduct committed by the writ petitioner and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the enquiry into the charges are certainly required. When the Disciplinary Proceedings are initiated against an employee, the employee has to submit his explanation/objections and prove his innocence in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer was already appointed in the present case and the Enquiry Officer commenced the Enquiry Proceedings. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner submitted a representation on 28.01.2013 stating that the petitioner should be permitted to have an Advocate as an observer in the enquiry proceedings.
6.The representation submitted by the writ petitioner in this regard on 28.02.2013 in his own hand, clarifies that the writ petitioner is not seeking assistance of a lawyer to represent his case before the Enquiry Officer. The writ petitioner is very specific that an Advocate must be permitted to observe the enquiry proceedings on his behalf. This apart, he requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to bring one Mr.P.Muraleetharan, co-employee also as an observer. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer informed that such permission has to be obtained from the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer cannot have any say in this regard.
7.The writ petitioner himself is a Law graduate and he is a legal advisor for the employees Union. Thus, the writ petitioner himself is capable of defending his case in the Enquiry Proceedings.
8.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is unnecessarily kept under suspension and in respect of the present charge memo, his request for an observer is rejected without any valid reason.
9.On a perusal of the contentions, this Court is of an opinion that the present writ petition is filed with a clear intention to prolong and protract the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings once initiated by the authorities competent, should be allowed to be completed in all respects and the same should reach its logical conclusion. The delinquent officials filing the writ petitions on these flimsy grounds cannot be entertained. The writ petitioner being a responsible official of the first respondent company has to defend his case in the enquiry proceedings. Contrarily, he is requesting for the Advocate as observer in the enquiry proceedings, which is not a procedure to be adopted. This Court can understand if the writ petitioner is seeking for an Assistance for the purpose of defending his case. The writ petitioner himself can defend his case in the enquiry proceedings. His only request is to permit an Advocate to be an Observer in the enquiry proceedings. Such a procedure is not contemplated and improper in respect of the enquiry proceedings. Observer can be granted only on exceptional circumstances and in normal enquiry proceedings, no such observer can be permitted. Intermittent intervention in the Departmental Disciplinary proceedings are certainly not preferable. The writ petitions cannot be entertained as a mere denial of an observer will not constitute cause of action for filing the present writ petition. The whole idea of the delinquent official to prolong the Disciplinary proceedings cannot be encouraged by the Courts. Probable idea in this lis is that, filing the writ petition keeping the writ petition, pending for years together and take advantage of the lapse of time, so that they can escape from the clutches of Disciplinary Proceedings. Such an attitude of the employees can never be entertained and therefore, those writ petitions filed with an idea to protract the disciplinary proceedings are to be dealt at the earliest possible.
10.In the present case, the charges against the writ petitioner are in relation to the allegations of misconduct and it is for the writ petitioner to submit his explanation/objections and prove his innocence before the enquiry proceedings and therefore, this Court at this stage cannot grant a relief of observer for the purpose of witnessing the disciplinary proceedings.
11.The enquiry Officer has to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the procedures contemplated and by providing of reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case in accordance with Rules. The writ petitioner also has to participate in the enquiry proceedings and defend his case for the purpose of proving his innocence. Thus, in all respects, the enquiry proceedings are to be concluded in accordance with the procedures, within a reasonable period of time and there should not be any undue delay. Since the matter is pending for long time, on account of the pendency of the writ petition, this Court is of an opinion that it is a fit case, where the authorities are to be directed to conclude the enquiry at the earliest point of time. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to proceed with the enquiry proceedings and concluded the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12.The writ petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the enquiry proceedings and by availing the opportunities to be provided to him.
13.With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
.