Chudalayandi Pillai T. vs Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and Others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Chudalayandi Piliai, the petitioner herein was removed by the order dated April 9, 1983 by the Director of

Town and Country Planning, the second respondent herein. He filed the appeal before the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban

Development Department and the same was confirmed by the order dated September 3, 1985. Challenging the same, he. filed the petition before

the Tribunal and the petition has been taken up by the Tribunal, which in turn held that out of three charges, two charges were proved and in view

of the nature of the proved charges, modified the, punishment of removal which was disproportionate, by ordering reinstatement without any back

wages. Having not satisfied with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Town and Country Planning on October 14, 1970. He was promoted as

Assistant on December 12, 1975. In the year 1981, he was sent on transfer to the office of the Coimbatore Local Planning Authority. From the

date of joining in the said office, he was not allotted any work. Hence, he was forced to seek leave even on loss of pay to avoid mental depression

and physical boredom. Complaining about this, the petitioner sent a memorandum on October 20, 1982 to the Director of Town and Country

Planning, the second respondent herein. By the reply dated October 29, 1982, the second respondent ordered the petitioner to join duty

immediately. He sent another letter on November 4, 1982 about his inability to join, since his grievances have not been set right. Therefore, on

December 6, 1982 the second respondent issued a charge memo framing three charges: (1) The petitioner failed to join duty immediately as per

the order of the Director and thereby it was disobeyed. (2) The petitioner tried to threaten the Director that he would send ''� representation to

the higher authorities if his grievances are not set right. (3) The petitioner used to take leave often, thereby acted in-a prejudicial manner in his duty.

On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner gave a detailed explanation. Ultimately, after personal hearing, the second respondent passed

orders on April 9, 1983 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, who in turn dismissed the

same. Hence, he preferred the petition before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal though held that the second charge is not proved, concluded that both the first and third charges have been proved and held that

ends of justice would be met, if he is reinstated without back-wages.

Assailing the above order dated August 28, 2001, Mr. S.J. Jagdev, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the

Tribunal that reinstatement without back wages is a harsh punishment, especially when the Tribunal held that the second charge which is a serious

charge was not proved.

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader and also gone through the impugned order and other records.

In regard to the first and third charges, namely, not joining the duty in spite of the direction given by the Director and habitually taking leave, it

has to be stated that the petitioner himself admitted the same in his explanation. However, he said that failure to join the duty and applying for leave

often were due to the grievances that he had at the hands of the officers under whom he was serving. Under those circumstances, we are unable to

go into the merits of the conclusions with reference to the charges 1 and 3.

However, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that reinstatement without back wages would be a harsh one and

the same is disproportionate to the charges proved which are not so serious in the light of the factual situation.

It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working from the year 1970 and he was promoted and he has put in 15 years unblemished

service. Even the issuance of the charge memo dated December 6, 1982 was as a result of the petitioner''s letter dated November 4, 1982

complaining about the officers under whom he was working. In the light of the fact situation, it cannot be said that the entire back wages are to be

withheld.

In a similar situation, the Supreme Court would hold in Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , that reinstatement with

back wages of 50% for the intermediate period would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with 50% back wages.

The same shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The order of the Tribunal dated August 28, 2001 is modified as indicated above. No order as to

costs. 210