Madras High Court
N.Sivanesan vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 26 November, 2019
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 2 of 2010
N.Sivanesan ...Petitioner in both cases
vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,
Revisional Authority,
Thanjavur.
2.Thanjavur District Consumer Wholesale
Co-Operative Society Limited, D-878,
Thanjavur. ...Respondents in both cases
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.224 of 2010: Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent,
in Na.Ka.No.1347 of 2007 in Revision Petition No.4 of 2007,
dated 27.05.2008 confirming the order of dismissal passed by
second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3193 of 2006, dated
02.11.2006 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct
the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner with all
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010
other monetary benefits and regularise the period options for
the purpose of increment, promotion and all other purpose.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.8598 of 2010: Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent,
in Na.Ka.No.1348 of 2007 in Revision Petition No.5 of 2007,
dated 27.05.2008 confirming the order of dismissal passed by
second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3194 of 2006, dated
02.11.2006 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct
the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner with all
attendant and monetary benefits and regularise the period.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebeneser
For Respondents: Mr.M.Jeyakumar
Additional Government Pleader
(in both cases)
***
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed to quash the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, dated 27.05.2008 confirming the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent, dated 02.11.2006 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. 2/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010
2.The petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the second respondent Co-Operative Society and he was assigned the task of distribution of kerosene at Srinivasapuram Kerosene Distribution Centre from 02.02.2006 to 13.02.2006. While he was incharge of the distribution of kerosene at the centre, which was under the control of second respondent, a charge memo, dated 06.05.2006 was issued to the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:
“jpU.vd;.rptNerd;> ,sepiy cjtpahsh;> rPdpthrGuk; kz;nzd;nza; tpepNahfk; ikaj;jpapy; jpU.v];.FU%h;j;jp> tpw;gidahsUld; gzpahw;wpa NghJ ,UtUk; Nrh;e;J gjpT ngw;w rpy;yiu tpw;gid (Mh;Mh;rp) chpikahsh; jpU.n[.fy;ahzpf;F xJf;fg;gl;Ls;s FLk;g ml;ilfSf;F kz;nzd;nza; toq;fpajhf gjpTfs; Nkw;nfhz;L Fw;wKW Nehf;Fld; gz;lfrhiyf;F ek;gpf;if Nkhrb nra;Js;shh;.
,th; jd;dpr;irahf nray;gl;L gz;lfrhiyapd; nghJ tpepNahfj; jpl;lj;jpw;F CW tpistpj;Js;shh;.”
3.From the reading of charges, the allegations against the petitioner is that while the petitioner was in service along with his salesman, by name, S.Gurumoorthy, supplied kerosene to card holders, who were attached to some 3/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010 other retail dealer, by name, J.Kalyani. The second charge was also to the effect that the petitioner, by his conduct, caused damage to the public distribution system, by his irresponsible conduct.
4.The petitioner gave his explanation and the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, who after conducting enquiry, found that the charges against the petitioner are proved.
5.Similar charge memo was also issued to the petitioner on 06.05.2006 and the charge memo contains the following charges:
“,th; nghJ tpepNahfj; jpl;lj;jpd; FLk;g ml;iljhuh;fSf;F toq;f Ntz;ba kz;nzd;izia Nghyp tpw;gid gl;bfs; jahh; nra;J fs;sr; re;ijapy; tpw;W Rayhgk; mile;Js;shh;.
rPdpthrGuk; kz;nzd;izia toq;Fk;
epiyaj;jpy; jpU.vd;.rptNerd;> ,sepiy cjtpahsh;
gzpahw;wpaNghJ ,tUf;F toq;fg;gl;l mwpTiufs;
cjhrPdg;gLj;jp nghJ tpepNahfj; jpl;lj;jpy; guhkhpf;fg;gl Ntz;ba Mtzq;fis Fw;wKW Nehf;Fld; rhpahf guhkhpf;fg;glhky; Fw;wk; ,ioj;Js;shh;.” 4/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010
6.The same Enquiry Officer was also conducted the enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of charges, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)No.8598 of 2010. In both cases, the petitioner has admitted that based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent imposed a punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the order of second respondent in both cases, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the first respondent, who also dismissed the revision by impugned orders. Challenging the same, the above Writ Petitions have been filed.
7.In both Writ Petitions, the charges are similar. The petitioner in his explanation submitted that he did not have an occasion to know whether the cards pointed out in the charge memo were attached to some other Centre or dealer and that there was no indication in the ration card specifying that the card was attached to some other dealer. By this explanation, the petitioner has admitted the charges. It is known that every ration card refers to the shop, to which the card is 5/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010 attached for receiving supplies from the Fair Price Shop. The petitioner's explanation, therefore, is sufficient for the Enquiry Officer to hold that the charges against the petitioner are proved.
8.Regarding the charge memo, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.8598 of 2010, it is to be seen that the charge is explicit that the petitioner has distributed commodities to different cards, which are not attached to the centre, to which the petitioner was incharge.
In both cases, the charges are very specific and the explanation offered by the petitioner has not been accepted by the Enquiry Officer after recording reasons. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are well founded. The second respondent, namely, the Disciplinary Authority, has applied his mind to consider the objections and explanations offered by the petitioner in the course of proceedings. It is not a case, where, principles of natural justice is violated or any other serious irregularity is pointed out in the decision making 6/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010 process.
9.Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer had some enmity against the petitioner, no ground was raised or objection was recorded by petitioner at the appropriate time before completion of enquiry. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no substance and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order second respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent, by the impugned order.
10.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the course of arguments, submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is a Junior Assistant holding charge of a public distribution centre. At most care and integrity is expected from the petitioner, while discharging his duty. The responsibility of a public servant is 7/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010 also expected from such person, who are in administering public distribution system, as per the policy of the Government. If the system fails on account of such serious irregularity, this will pave way for not only mere inconvenience to public, but, also lead to the extinction of proper public distribution system. Hence, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view in the case of the petitioner, against, whom charges are held to be proved.
11.As a result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed and the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, dated 27.05.2008, confirming the orders passed by the second respondent, dated 02.11.2006, are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes/No 26.11.2019
Internet : Yes/No
To
The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Revisional Authority, Thanjavur.
8/9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010 S.S.SUNDAR, J.
cmr W.P.(MD)Nos.224 and 8598 of 2010 26.11.2019 9/9 http://www.judis.nic.in