Madras High Court
D.Thiagarajan vs The Managing Director on 4 July, 2013
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.07.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition No.17895 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 D.Thiagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited (TAHDCO) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Shopping Complex Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (West) Chennai 101 .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned Charge Memo issued by the respondent in his proceeding in A4/ 6482/2010 dated 10.4.2013 and impugned order of suspension passed by the respondent in Se.Mu. Order No.A2/2262/2013 dated 30.4.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to settle the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 1.5.2013. *** For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.P O R D E R
With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade II on 1.4.1984. Later he was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1985 and Assistant in 1987. He was further promoted as Divisional Accountant in 1993. He became Selection Grade Accountant in 2005. He was to retire on 30.4.2013 on reaching the age of superannuation.
4. A large number of complaints from SC & ST beneficiaries were received relating to purchase of Auto under various subsidy schemes as against the Chennai District Manager S.Seran and the Assistant District Manager P.Selin Mary.
5. On 9.12.2010, a Committee was formed by the respondent consisting of 6 members to probe into the allegations and submit a report. The petitioner was one among the 6 members.
6. The allegation was that the aforesaid two officials received promoters contributions heavily and swindled Rs.58,83,264/- under SEPY Auto scheme for the year 2010-2011 and Rs.5,74,771/- under NSFDC Auto Scheme for the year 2010-2011. Totally 799 SC/ST beneficiaries were cheated in collusion with one Khivraj Automobile Company, Chennai and other officials. The proforma invoice of Khviraj Automobile Company was filed by the Assistant Manager Tmt.Selin Mary without being signed by the said Company. The selection list of SC/ST beneficiaries was not approved by the District Collector, Chennai. The main procedural deviation was that the particulars of promotion contribution were not maintained in the office and on the other hand it was directly paid to Khivraj Automobile Company.
7. The Committee found the aforesaid procedural irregularities were true and submitted a report on 20.12.2010. Instead of lodging a complaint to CBCID/CCB based on the report of the Committee, the respondent obtained opinion from the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer and Company Secretary and sought to ignore the grave irregularities.
8. While so, the respondent issued the impugned charge memo dated 10.4.2013 at the verge of retirement of the petitioner. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 30.4.2013. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the charge memo and the suspension order.
9. The crux of the allegations in the charge memo is that while preparing the report of the Committee stating that there were irregularities in the Auto Scheme, the petitioner gave a wrong report.
10. In this regard, the three charges made in the charge memo are extracted hereunder:
"Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/1 gzf;Fwpg;ngL ( Cash Book ) kw;Wk; Mtz';fsr; rhptu eP';fs; Ma;;t[ bra;ahky; bghpa mst[ epjp KiwnfLfs;; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhft[k; gadhspfs; Vkhw;;wg;gl;ljhft[k; jtwhd mwpf;if cs;;nehf;fj;;njhL mspj;;J jhl;nfh gzptpjp 44 M kw;;Wk; ,?I kPwp ele;J bfhz;ljhf Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;;gLfpwJ/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/2 jhl;nfhtpd;; ew;bgaUf;;F Fe;jfk; Vw;;gLj;;Jk; tifapy; gjpntLfisr;; rhptu Ma;;t[ bra;ahky; jd;dpr;;irahf jtwhd Ma;twpf;;if eP';fs; rkh;;g;;gpj;J gzp tpjp 44 m kw;;Wk;; 45?i kPwp ele;J bfhz;ljhf Fw;;wk; Rkj;;jg;gLfpwJ/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/3 Fwpg;ghiz vz/1 m1/6482.2010 ehs;; 22.7.2011?,y; TLjy; tptu';fs; kw;Wk; ml;ltizaplg;;gl;Ls;s tptu';fs;s mspf;;fhky;; bghJthd mwpf;ifna eP';fs;; mspj;J gzptpjp 45?I kPwp ele;J bfhz;ljhf Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;gLfpwJ//@
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:
i) If the respondent was not inclined to agree with the report of the Committee, the respondent could take its own decision. But the respondent cannot take disciplinary action for recording the finding of irregularities.
ii) The petitioner was singled out for issuing the charge memo, while the report was signed by five other persons, who are all also employees of the respondent Corporation.
Iii) It is submitted that the respondent Corporation does not have power to continue the disciplinary action after the petitioner retired from service.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions in support of his case:
i) Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. And others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666
ii) N.Kunnai Gowder vs. the Coimbatore District Coopertive Milk Producers' Union Ltd., Pachapalyaam, Perur and others reported in 2007 (5) CTC 49
iii)M.K.S.Balasubramanian vs. The Kancheepuram Central Cooperative Bank Limited reported in 2010 (2) CTC 569
13. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has strenuously contended that since it is only issuance of a charge memo, the petitioner should give explanation and face the enquiry proceedings and he could not challenge the same at this stage.
14. Normally, this Court cannot venture to interfere with the charge memo issued by the authorities. But, in this case, for more than one reasons, I am of the view that the charge memo has to be interfered with.
15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the respondent has not accepted the report of the Committee that was constituted by the respondent to enquire into the complaints, the respondent could take its own decision. But the respondent cannot issue a charge memo on the ground that the petitioner was one of the signatories in the Committee finding certain irregularities in the Scheme and S.C./S.T beneficiaries were cheated. Further more, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other members of the Committee, who also signed the Report, were not issued the charge memos. The petitioner alone cannot be singled out, particularly when he was to retire on 30.4.2013, thereby depriving his terminal benefits.
16. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has much force and there is no provision in the Service Rules providing for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are directly on the point.
17. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned charge memo dated 10.4.2013 and the suspension order dated 30.4.2013 are quashed. A direction is issued to the respondent to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
04.07.2013 Index:Yes Internet:Yes ajr To The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited (TAHDCO) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Shopping Complex Thirumangalam Anna Nagar (West) Chennai 101 D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
ajr W.P.No.17895 of 2013 04.07.2013