Madras High Court
Vanaja N. vs Board Of Directors Of Tamil Nadu Small ... on 23 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)1LLJ172MAD
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
JUDGMENT Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. The writ petition is directed against dismissal of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the second, respondent dated June 1, 2005 as per the resolution passed by the first respondent in the 209th meeting held on November 3, 2005 as shown in the communication of the second respondent dated November 15, 2005 in Proceedings No. 4468/A-3/2004.
2. It is stated that the second respondent has passed an order reducing the rank of the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to the post of Assistant after holding her guilty of the charges framed against her. Against which the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the first respondent. By communication dated November 15, 2005 it was informed to the petitioner that the Board of Directors, SIDCO has resolved after detailed examination to reject the Appeal made by the petitioner and to confirm the orders passed by the Managing Director, against which the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court, Rule 6.25A of the Service Rules of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, which contemplates that when an Appeal is preferred imposing penalties specified in Rule 6.15, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and pass orders:
(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Rule 6.25B contemplates that it shall be open to the Appellate Authority to call for the records in respect of any disciplinary proceeding and review any order made under these rules and pass such orders as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
4. After going through the order impugned in the writ petition, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the Appellate Authority except informing that after detailed examination a resolution has been passed to reject the Appeal made by the petitioner and confirm the order dated June 1, 2005 passed by the Managing Director, nothing has been stated, has not followed the Rules contemplated under Rule 6.25A of the above said rules. Except saying that after detailed examination, no reason was given as specified under Rule 6.25A of the above said service rules as to whether the Appellate Authority had considered that the punishment imposed was adequate or inadequate. What is the detailed examination is also not mentioned in that order.
5. Therefore the order is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is also closed. There will be no order as to costs.