AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner was working as a Law Officer in the cadre of an Assistant Manager. He was imposed with a punishment of
reduction in the lowest of the scale of his basic pay for a period of three years by an order dated 09.11.2004 issued by the first respondent. The
petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors by his appeal dated 12.11.2004. In the 172nd meeting of the Board of Directors held on
19.3.2005, the petitioner''s appeal was rejected and the same was communicated by a letter dated 22.4.2005. The petitioner moved the third
respondent by a representation dated 16.9.2005. It is not clear under what provision of law the petitioner had moved the third respondent
Government especially when he was working in a Government company and it is an autonomous body. However, the Government by an order
dated 18.1.2006 rejected his appeal stating that it was submitted beyond appeal period. It is these orders which are under challenge before this
Court.
The writ petition was admitted on 22.3.2006. His prayer for an interim order was declined by this Court. Though the matter was referred to for
resolution by the Lok Adalat, as the same could not be resolved and it was referred back to this Court for a decision on merits. On behalf of the
first respondent, a detailed counter affidavit dated ''nil'' (September 2006) was filed.
The charge against the petitioner was that his very claim for motor accident tribunal Award comes up for settlement and if the award amount to
be settled is beyond Rs. 3 lakhs, it can be done so only after approval by the Finance Committee/Board. The petitioner without following the said
instruction, initiated action and settled amounts after placing the subject before the Sub-Committee, which has no power to make such settlement.
The petitioner was the member of the Sub-Committee along with the Chief Accounts Officer, General Manager and the Managing Director. During
November and December 2002, the Sub-Committee decided to settle certain cases and deposited the amounts which are as follows :
Sl.NO. MCOP.No. Name of the Court Total Amount Date of
deposited Deposit
Rs.
1 805/2000 Addl.Dist.Judge II, Krishnagiri 5,00,321/- 11/19/02
2 1085/2001 -do- 4,68,252/- 12/4/02
3 263/2001 -do- 8,51,804/- 12/11/02
37/1996 Addl.Dist.Court-cum-Fast Track Court, 7,44,368/-
4 Dharmapuri 11/20/02
When the decision of the Sub-Committee was placed before the Board for ratification, the Board in its meeting dated 26.12.2002 did not ratify
the action in having deposited the amount without prior approval of the Finance Committee or the Board. The Board also took exception to the
conduct of the officers for not pursuing appeal remedies to their logical end.
The petitioner did not dispute his role in placing the matter before the Sub-Committee, even though the Sub-Committee had no such financial
powers to take decision on award amounts exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs. In fact, in his affidavit, he has admitted his role but defended himself by saying
that he had done it in the interest of the Corporation. The following averments found in para 6 may be usefully extracted below:
.... In the case of MCOP. No. 37 of 96 though the corporation entrusted the case to its standing counsel for filing appeal and though he has filed
appeal but not obtained any stay. Therefore in that case also the EP was filed to realize the award amount. The executing court after several
adjournments, finally declined to grant any further adjournment for deposit. But however with great effort the matter was once again adjourned
giving last chance for the corporation to deposit the award amount. In the interest of the corporation and to avoid the attachment of the property of
the corporation I initiated a file and placed the matter before the Sub Committee of MCOP to decide as follows:
The award amount may be settled as per the Court direction based on the orders passed by the Court on the execution filed by the petitioner.
Ratification may be obtained from the Finance committee/Board later.
Such a practice was in vogue for the past 20 years not only in this corporation but also in all other sister transport corporation in Tamil Nadu right
from their respective formation. That practice is bonafidely and honestly followed in this case also.
Based upon such defence, Mr. M.Palani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not the only person in the sub-
committee and the others who took part in the sub-committee''s deliberations were let off. As he alone was punished, the punishment was
discriminatory and excessive. In this context, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seedsgrowers
Union Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, . The passages found in paragraphs 27 and 28 may be reproduced below:
Para 27. There is, however, another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Identical allegations were made against seven persons. The
management did not take serious note of misconduct committed by six others although they were similarly situated. They were allowed to take the
benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme.
Para 28. The first respondent might not have opted therefor. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, he
should be, in our opinion, treated on a similar footing. In view of the fact that the first respondent has succeeded in the Labour Court and the
learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench; we are of the opinion that having regard to the overall situation, the interest of justice would be
subserved if the award of the Labour Court dated 31-1-2003 as affirmed by the High Court is substituted by a direction that the first respondent
shall also be given the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme from the month in which the other workmen were given the benefit thereof.
It must be stated that the above case cited by the petitioner arose out of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the petitioner therein was a
workman under the ID Act. Even otherwise, under the ID Act the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment will arise only in cases of
dismissal whereas the petitioner had been visited with a minor penalty alone.
In the present case, the petitioner was a Law Officer/Assistant Manager (MACT) holding an important position and is expected to properly
advice the Corporation on legal matters. Further, the charge of discrimination cannot be accepted since the other officers have also been
proceeded with by the respondent Corporation. The following averments found in para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent may
be usefully extracted below:
As General Manager and Managing Director were on deputation basis disciplinary action were initiated against them in the respective parent
corporation. In respect of other two including the petitioner, charge memos dated 12.3.2003 were issued to them. After examining his explanation
submitted for the charge memos, domestic enquiry was conducted against the Officer on 11.3.2004 in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The enquiry officer has submitted his findings dated 17.3.2004 holding that the charges framed against him were held proved beyond any
doubt. Based on the enquiry findings second showcause notice dated 20.4.2004 was issued to the officer as to why his present basic pay should
not be reduced to the lowest of the present scale of pay for a period of 3 years. After examining his explanation the following punishments were
imposed against the officer vide order No. 68/D2/5393/Legal/TSTC(Salem)/2004-2, dated 09.11.2004.
R.Muthukrishnan-Petitioner Basic pay reduced to
A.M. (MACT) the lowest of the
present scale of pay
for a period of 3 yrs.
It is submitted that the interest of the corporation has been compromised for obvious reasons. Since it could be seen that there was time gap for
almost 9 to 12 months in between delivery of award and date of deposit. During the period 4 Finance committee/Board Meeting have taken place.
It is therefore incorrect to state that proper approval could not be obtained.
Therefore, the charge of discrimination levelled against the respondent cannot have any legal basis.
It must also be made clear that the power of this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is very limited. If a person holds an high
office involving financial transaction, his degree of integrity and trustworthiness must be unexceptionable. In this context, it will be useful to refer to
the decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal and Another, . The passage found in para
10 may be usefully extracted below:
It needs to be emphasized that the court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that
the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above,
the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the
quoted extracts of the High Court''s order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was
considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or
conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. See Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree. A mere statement
that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a court, as to what it is that the court is addressing its mind. It is not only the
amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process
while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty
and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be
dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest
degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High
Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal.
In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks in merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs.