Madras High Court
C.Jegan vs The Managing Director on 14 June, 2022
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
WP.No.20082/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 14.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
WP.No.20082/2018 & WMP.Nos.23546 & 23547/2018
C.Jegan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd [TASMAC]
4th Floor, CMDA Building,
Tower-II, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Senior Regional Manager
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd [TASMAC]
56, Bhirunthavanam Salai
Azhagapuram, Salem-16.
3.The District Manager [Arakkonam]
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd [TASMAC]
IMFS Deport, 39/4, Filter Bed Road
Vellore 632 001. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of order of the 1st respondent bearing proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
WP.No.20082/2018
Se.Mu.No.R1/1396/2018 dated 28.03.2018 confirming the orders of the
2nd respondent in Se.Mu.No.220/2016/A dated 12.01.2018 and the order
of the 3rd respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.A2/914-12/C.V/2014 dated
06.10.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents
herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Manimaran
For Respondents : Mr.N.Damodaran
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(1)The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.03.2018 confirming the orders of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 12.01.2018 and 06.10.2016 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.
(2)The petitioner was appointed on 31.12.2003 as Supervisor for the TASMAC Shop No.11253 under the respondents Management situate at Rajakuppam PACB, Paravakkal Village, Vellore District. (3)While the petitioner was working in Shop No.11017 at Arakkonam Taluk as Supervisor, on 24.06.2014 when surprise check by the team of the respondents TASMAC conducted, they found that IMFL Liquor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 WP.No.20082/2018 Bottles have been sold by the petitioner above the MRP price. By thus, for the said alleged violation, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
(4)However, even though the petitioner was suspended on 24.06.2014, still the petitioner seems to have visited the shop and with the earlier influence as he was working in that shop as Supervisor, it seems that he had been continuously meddling with the affairs of the shop even in the month of July 2014. Therefore, once again a surprise check was undertaken by the respondents TASMAC people on 26.07.2014 where the police people found that the petitioner was available in the shop, based on which a FIR was registered and subsequently, they found that in one type of liquor bottle, i.e., 48 in numbers, water was mixed to get unjust enrichment by taking out the liquor from the said bottles. Based on this violation on the part of the petitioner, there was a criminal case filed and was, at that time, pending before the concerned criminal Court where the charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner. (5)Subsequently, apart from the said pendency of the criminal case, the respondents TASMAC shop had served the petitioner two Charge Memos. The first one is dated 24.07.2014, where the following charge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 WP.No.20082/2018 has been framed:
''Fw;wr;rhl;L 1 rP gphp!; 180 kpyp muR eph;za tpiy U:/90-? gjpy; U:/95-? mjhtJ ghl;lypd;
rpy;yiu tpw;gid tpiyapid tpl U:/ 5-?
mjpfkhf tpw;wJ. kw;Wk; v!;/vd;/n$.20000
gPh; U:/ 100-? f;F gjpy; U:/ 105-?/
mjhtJ ghl;lypd; rpy;yiu tpw;gid
tpiyapid tpl U:/ 5-? mjpfkhf tpw;wJ
fz;lwpag;gl;lJ/ ,J bjhHpyhsh; khjphp
epiyahid vz; (Model Standing Order) 16(h)
d; go jtwhFk;/''
(6)Subsequently, after the incident that had taken place where certain violations were found on 26.07.2014, the respondents TASMAC served another Charge Memo dated 20.06.2015 where the following charge had been framed against the petitioner:
1) Roman Castle Brandy 180 ML 48
ghl;oy;fspy; jz;zPh; fye;jpUe;jJ
fz;lwpag;gl;lJ/
2) ifg;gpoa[ld; Toa Crp?2 Nos.
3) thl;lh; ghf;bfl;Lfs;?10 Nos.-
filapypUe;J ifg;gw;wg;gl;lJ.
4) nkw;fz;l KiwnfLfspy; <Lgl;L
lh!;khf; epWtdj;jpw;F mtg;bgah;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
WP.No.20082/2018
Vw;gLk; tifapy; bray;gl;lJ/
(7)Though both the charges were served on the petitioner according to the respondents, the petitioner has simply given a denial stating that he has not been involved in any such violation and also taken a defence that since the petitioner was suspended with effect from 24.06.2014, the petitioner had no occasion to visit the shop on 26.07.2014 and therefore, the 2nd charge as if the petitioner violated which was said to be found during the inspection conducted on 26.07.2014, has no leg or basis. (8)Apart from this defence statement given by the petitioner, despite the notice was given by the Enquiry Officer requesting the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry, the petitioner has not turned out for such enquiry despite the notice in this regard having been served on the petitioner. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to complete the enquiry ex-parte and based on the available records, he had come to the conclusion that both the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved.
(9)Based on such proven charge as per the Enquiry Officer's Report, the Disciplinary Authority/2nd respondent has inflicted the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner by order dated 06.10.2016, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 WP.No.20082/2018 against which the appeal filed by the petitioner which was considered and decided by the 2nd respondent by order dated 12.01.2018 where the appeal was also rejected, thereby the order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed. As against which, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent who also, having considered the Disciplinary Authority's as well as the Appellate Authority's orders, has rejected the revision, thereby confirming the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 vide order dated 28.03.2018. Challenging these orders passed by the respondents, removing the petitioner from job by way of punishment for the proven charges as stated supra, the present writ petition has been filed with the afore stated prayer. (10)Heard Mr.M.Manimaran, learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed the point that the petitioner, since has been suspended with effect from 24.06.2014 and he was under suspension, there was no occasion for him to visit the concerned TASMAC shop on 26.07.2014.
Therefore, the 2nd episode as if the petitioner's violation was found out by the inspection team on 26.07.2014 is false as it does not have any foundation or basis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 WP.No.20082/2018 (11)Even in respect of the 2nd charge, Charge Memo has not been served on him and no notice had been served by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner enabling him to attend the enquiry. Therefore, without giving a chance of participating in the enquiry since the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte and concluded as if the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved, on that ground as it is a violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Therefore, on that ground, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court against the impugned orders.
(12)However, Mr.N.Damodaran, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents TASMAC shop has submitted that on 24.06.2014 when first inspection was conducted, it was found that there has been violation on the part of the petitioner and based on which, the petitioner was immediately placed under suspension followed by Charge Memos issued on him. But, during the suspension period, on 26.07.2014, when 2nd inspection was made, it was again found that the petitioner was available in the shop despite he was placed under suspension and this become evident from the FIR file by the police who also form part of the inspection team and ultimately, a criminal case has been filed which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 WP.No.20082/2018 was pending at that time. Therefore, two separate Charge Memo had been prepared and served on the petitioner. In this context, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has produced the relevant file before this Court for perusal.
(13)On perusal, it is found that the 1st Charge Memo dated 24.07.2014 was served on the petitioner and the petitioner also after putting the word ''received'', has signed in the Charge Memo itself. That has been form part of the file. Like that, the 2nd Charge Memo also had been served on the petitioner which is not disputed and insofar as the notice for the appearance before the Enquiry Officer is concerned, that notice also had been served on the petitioner as the petitioner was either not available or refused to receive, the wife of the petitioner who was present at home, has received the notice and a copy of the same also had been pasted at the door of the petitioner house and in this regard, the notice served on the wife of the petitioner with acknowledgment also had been form part of the file.
(14)After perusal of these records, this Court finds that the ground taken by the petitioner that the Charge Memos were not served on him or notice by the Enquiry Officer also had not been served on him, cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 WP.No.20082/2018 be countenanced as all these documents have been served on the petitioner either on the petitioner or through his wife. (15)Though it was a defence taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal case filed against the petitioner ended in acquittal by the judgment of the concerned criminal Court by judgment dated 17.11.2016, this Court is not impressed with the said defence taken by the petitioner because it is settled legal proposition that the degree of proof of guilt in criminal case is entirely different for a departmental proceeding. For the former one, it must be a proof beyond reasonable doubt and for the latter, it is a mere preponderance of probability.
(16)Herein the case in hand, two times inspection was conducted and first time, it was found that the petitioner had involved in some violation by selling liquor bottles above the MRP price, based on which the petitioner was placed under suspension. Second inspection had been conducted subsequently, i.e., on the next month, where also it was found that some violations were noticed and in such violation, the petitioner had involved and this had become evident based on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 WP.No.20082/2018 Report submitted by the police and other TASMAC officials who inspected the shop concerned.
(17)Two times charges have been framed and served on the petitioner and proper enquiry was conducted after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not utilised those opportunities. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to complete the enquiry ex-parte based on the available records and accordingly, he found that both charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Accordingly, he filed a Report based on which the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the maximum punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. (18)All these aspects have been considered by both the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority and therefore, this Court finds no irregularity or illegality attached with either of these orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. Therefore, the challenge made in this writ petition against those orders fails.
(19)Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 WP.No.20082/2018 dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.06.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd [TASMAC]
4th Floor, CMDA Building,
Tower-II, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Senior Regional Manager
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd [TASMAC]
56, Bhirunthavanam Salai
Azhagapuram, Salem-16.
3.The District Manager [Arakkonam]
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd [TASMAC]
IMFS Deport, 39/4, Filter Bed Road
Vellore 632 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11
WP.No.20082/2018
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.,
AP
WP.No.20082/2018
14.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12