Madras High Court
A. Thangavelu vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies ... on 22 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)CTC283
ORDER
1. Aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated 25.2.1992 modifying the order passed by the Regional Manager, viz., stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect into the removal from service of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the said order on various grounds.
2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:
While the petitioner was working as Quality Inspector in the respondent Corporation, after framing five charges, enquiry was conducted against him. He has submitted an explanation denying all the charges. Initially the charges were framed under Rule 16(1) of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Service Rules. After enquiry, the Regional Manager, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Region by his proceedings dated 12.4.1989 imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. While, such is the position, the respondent by proceedings dated 16.11.1989 revised the orders of the Regional Manager suo motu under Rule 36 of the T.N.C.S. (CCA) Rules and set aside the order of the Regional Manager and remanded the matter back to the Regional Manager, Pudukkottai Region for de novo enquiry to pass appropriate order by framing fresh charges. Consequent to the suo motu review, the Regional Manager, Pudukkottai Region, re-issued the charge memorandum dated 12.2.1990 under Rule 16(2) of the T.N.C.S.C. Service Rules, reiterating the same charges as framed earlier. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation. Later on an enquiry officer came to be appointed by the Regional Manager and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.8.1991 to the Regional Manager, Pudukkottai. Thereafter a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the petitioner and thereafter he submitted a detailed explanation. At this stage the respondent by the impugned order dated 25.2.1992 imposed punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved against the said order, he has filed the present writ petition on" various grounds.
3. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is also contended that since on earlier occasion the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer found to be defective and not acceptable by exercising suo motu power the matter has been remanded to the Regional Manager for fresh enquiry. The petitioner was given all opportunities before the Enquiry Officer and his explanation was considered. The order passed by the Regional Manager is in accordance with the Service Rules.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following submissions:
(i) As per Rule 36(l), sub-clause (iii) the appellate authority is competent to review the order of the first authority within six months from the date of the order. In this case, the initial order was passed on 12.4.1989. As per the said sub-clause (iii) if the order of the first authority is to be reviewed the same has to be done on or before 12.10.1989. Since, in this case the respondent by proceedings dated 16.11.1989 initiated review proceedings the same is beyond the period of six months, hence the action is contrary to Rule 36 (1) sub-clause (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
(ii) The impugned order is contrary to Rule 39 sub- clause (iv) (c) of the Rules.
(iii) Initially the charges were framed as per Rule 16(1) of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Service Rules. After reviewing the order of the first authority the charges have been framed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules, for the very same alleged violations. According to him, the same cannot.be done.
(iv) At the time of the impugned order the petitioner was working as Quality Inspector. As per the Rules, Chairman-cum-Managing Director is the appointing authority. In those circumstance, the charges framed by the Regional Manager is without jurisdiction.
(v) As per the Rules, the Enquiry Officer has to be appointed only by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. In this case, the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Regional Manager, which is also contrary to the Rules.
6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent after taking me through the counter affidavit submitted that the impugned order of the respondent is based on the Rules and there is no violation as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
8. With regard to the first submission there is no dispute that the Regional Manager has passed the order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for six months on 12.4.1989. If the appellate authority wants to exercise the suo motu power or to review the order of the Regional Manager the same has to be exercised as per Rule 36(1) (iii) of the T.N.C.S.C. Service Rules. In order to appreciate the above contention, I hereby extract the said Rule 36(1) (iii):-
"Rule 36 (1):............
(ii) ................
(iii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed, or"
9. The reading of the above Rule makes the position clear that if the appellate authority wants to review the order of the Regional Manager (Original authority) the same has to be done within six months from the date of the order. In this case, as seen from the proceedings of the respondent in Rc. G-4/85431/89 dated 16.11.1989 i,e., beyond the period of six months prescribed under sub-clause (iii) of the above said Rules. I have already mentioned that the date of order and the review order dated 16.11.1989 has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the light of the above factual position. I am of the view that the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is well - founded. If the first contention is accepted mere is no need to go into the other contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the action of the respondent reviewing the order of the Regional Manager dated 12.4.1989 on 16.11.1989 is clearly prohibited as per sub-clause (iii) of the above referred Rule. Hence, I hold that the proceedings initiated by the respondents on 16.11.1989 is in violation of Rule 36(1) (iii) of the Rules, In those circumstances, as already stated I need not go into the other factual position. Accordingly, the impugned order based on the proceedings of the respondent dated 16.11.1989 is quashed.
10. Net result, the order of the Regional Manager, Sivagangai in Roc.No.E1/369/89 dated 12.4.1989 is restored and the impugned order of the respondent dated 25.2.1992 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed on the above terras. No costs. It is needless to mention that in view of setting aside the impugned order the petitioner is entitled to the service and other monitary benefits.