AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the second Respondent dated 28-9-93 as confirmed by the order of the first Respondent
dated 25-3-94, dismissing him from service, the Petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash those orders and for direction to the
Respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits including the back-wages.
The case of the Petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The second Respondent proceeded against him for financial loss of Rs. 2.06 lakhs on
account of repairs of 73 pumpsets belonging to the Corporation. For the same, he was suspended on 2-8-94 along with two other employees viz.,
K. Chellamani and A.R. Maheswaran who are Electrical Superintendents. A charge memo was issued to him on 13-9-84. After prolonged
correspondences between the Petitioner and the Respondents, and after filing of several writ petitions, without proceeding with the enquiry,
another charge memo was issued for third time on 9-4-91 as to why the loss of Rs. 2.06 lakhs should not be recovered from him. Again, the
matter was stopped and after some time, a show cause notice was issued on 4-2-92 as to why an amount of R.46,099/- should not be recovered
from him, since the financial loss was arrived at and not for Rs. 2.06 lakhs. After a lapse of 9 years, an enquiry was fixed on 12-5-93. He also
submitted that the Electrical Superintendents who are directly concerned with actual repairing and on their certificates, he recommended to the
Asst. Executive Engineer for releasing the amount. The second Respondent without appreciating the facts and influenced by the facts that he has
moved this Court more than 3 occasions successfully challenging the orders, repelled all his contentions and passed an order on 28-9-93
dismissing him from service. He preferred an appeal and the same was placed before the appeals committee on 11-2-94 and the appeals
committee confirmed the order of dismissal. Against those orders, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
After taking me through the entire proceedings including the charge memo, various writ petitions before this Court as well as the charges levelled
against the other two persons, namely, K. Chellamani and A.R. Maheswaran, Mr. N. Paul Vasanthakumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
would contend that having imposed lesser punishment for the other two persons, namely, K. Chellamani and A.R. Maheswaran, the Respondents
committed an error in dismissing the Petitioner from service. According to him, the order of dismissal is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. He also prays that similar lesser punishment as ordered to those two persons, namely, reversion from Grade-2 to Grade-1 without affecting
the basic pay be passed in the case of the Petitioners and he is also willing to pay Rs. 46,099/- as claimed by the Respondents and as paid by the
other two persons. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, would state that in as much as the Petitioner was given
adequate opportunity in the enquiry and based on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has imposed appropriate punishment,
hence there is no ground for interference by this Court.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
It is seen from the materials placed the Petitioner who was working as Drainage Superintendent and 2 other persons, namely, K. Chellamani
and A.R. Maheswaran, who were working as Electrical Superintendents -Grade 2 in the Respondent Corporation, were placed under suspension
pending disciplinary proceedings for certain serious irregularities and thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation in the repair works done by
the various types of motor pumpsets. Based on the stock verification and on the basis of report of the verification officer, 7 charges had been
framed against the Petitioner and the said other two persons. A reading of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai dated
14-11-86 clearly shows that all the 3 were charged for the same violations. This aspect has not been disputed. While so, since the Petitioner was
due to retire on 30-9-93, an enquiry was initiated against him and based on the report of the enquiry officer, he was dismissed from service. He
also preferred an appeal before the Appeal Committee on 27-10-93 and the Appeal Committee, by order dated 11-2-94, rejected his appeal. It
is also stated that the 2nd Respondent and the enquiry officer were members of the Appeal Committee; accordingly it is stated that the ultimate
order passed by the Appeal Committee on 11-2-94 cannot be sustained. Apart from this, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to my
notice the punishment imposed on the other two persons, namely K. Chellamani and A.R. Maheswaran, who were also charge sheeted for the
very same offences as per the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 14-11-86. It is not disputed that the very same charges levelled against
these persons (Chellamani and Maheswaran) were proved, and they were awarded lesser punishment of withholding of increments for 5 years with
cumulative effect and on appeal, it was modified to one of reversion from Grade II to Grade I without affecting their basic pay. These factual
aspects have not been disputed by the Respondents. I have already referred to that the part played by, and the charges levelled against all the 3
including the Petitioner were one and the same. If that is so, there is no acceptable explanation for treating the Petitioner differently from the other
two persons and imposing on him the capital punishment, namely dismissal from service and imposing on the other two the lesser punishment of
reversion. As rightly argued, the order of dismissal imposed on the Petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner has very much relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Rajamanickam v. The Executive Director,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited reported in 1997 W.L.R. 536 : 1997 (3) L.L.N. 550. In similar circumstance of imposing punishment of removal
on one person, the Division Bench, after referring to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sengara Singh and Others Vs. State of
Punjab and Others, , has held as follows: (para 26)
We are of the view that there is no iota to evidence which would differentiate the case of the present Appellant from that of the other employee
Meenakshisundaram. This discrimination is writ large on the record and the Court cannot Overlook the same. Therefore, we see no justification in
treating the Appellant differently without pointing out how he was guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in this case was
higher than compared to that of Meenakshisundaram. learned Counsel for the management failed to explain to us the distinguishing features and
therefore we are satisfied in putting both of them in the same bracket. Therefore we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the treatment
meted to the present Appellant suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and Article 14 forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to denial of
equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court must accordingly interpose and quash the discriminatory action.
In the light of the similar factual position, I am of the view that the principle laid down in the above Division Bench judgment is squarely applicable
to the facts of the present case. In this case, I have referred to the nature of charges levelled against all the 3 persons as seen from the proceedings
of the Commissioner of the Corporation dated 14-11-86. In the absence of any explanation before me as to how the Petitioner was guilty of more
serious, misconduct or the degree of dereliction of duty in this case was higher than compared to that of the other two persons, as observed by the
Division Bench, I am of the opinion that the present action against the Petitioner is undoubtedly hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the light of what is stated above, the Petitioner is entitled to succeed to the extent of the lesser punishment imposed on the other two persons,
namely, K. Chellamani and A.R. Maheswaran. Accordingly, the order of punishment of dismissal imposed on the Petitioner is modified to one of
reversion from Grade-2 to Grade-1 without affecting his basic pay as ordered in the case of the said K. Chellamani and A.R. Maheswaran by the
Respondents. It is also stated that the other two persons have each paid Rs. 46,099/- to the Respondents and that the Petitioner is also willing to
pay the same amount of Rs. 46,099/- . The statement of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard is recorded. Inasmuch as the
Petitioner had attained superannuation and retired from service even on 30-9-93, in view of the modified order now passed, the Petitioner is
entitled to get salary, increments and other benefits from 13-7-87 to 30-9-93 after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid. It is also
made clear that the Petitioner is also entitled to get leave salary, if any and admissible pension, gratuity, Provident Fund and all other retirement
benefits. It is further made clear that while setting the above retirement benefits, the amount of Rs. 46,099/- payable by the Petitioner may be
adjusted. The Respondents are directed to settle all the amounts due to the Petitioner as directed above within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed as mentioned above. No costs.