Case Title:
V.Jotheeswari … Petitioner
Vs.
TamilNaduCivil Supplies Corporation and Anrs. …Respondents
Date of Decision:
Reserved on:07.06.2023
Delivered on: 19.06.2023
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
Citation:
W.P.No.26113 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.27738 and 27739 of 2017
Introduction:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 of the 3rd respondent, quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.
Facts:
The Petitioner in the affidavit in support of her Writ Petition are that she was holding the post of Deputy Manager (Movement) with the respondent Corporation and she reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. A special audit was ordered into the storage and movement of rice from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014 and the audit report has given a finding of irregularity in Storage and Movement of rice resulting in loss of Rs.35,67,379/-. According to the Writ Petitioner, the 4th respondent was the Senior Regional Manager and Head of the Chennai North Region and one S.Manimozhi was the Manager
(Storage and Movement) and that the petitioner was subordinate to these two persons. The audit report, besides suggesting action against the Writ Petitioner also suggested action to be taken various other employees responsible for the loss. However, excepting the 4th respondent, Tmt. S.Nirmala and the petitioner all others were let off and charges were framed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 03.03.2015. Charges against both the two persons were identical, accusing all responsible for heavy loss to the Corporation.
Issues:
Whether the disciplinary authority is entitled to take a different view from the one taken by the enquiry officer?
Does the principles of natural justice would certainly require that the
disciplinary authority to afford a fair opportunity to the Petitioner?
Legal Analysis:
Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through various
charges and also the grounds raised in support of the Writ Petition and made his elaborate submissions with regard to each of the grounds, especially the right of the 1st respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings thereby the very charge memo itself being vitiated as one without jurisdiction.
The petitioner was only in charge of “Movement” and not “Storage and Movement” and when the enquiry officer had rightly found the main charge of monetary loss having been caused to the respondent Corporation in favour of the petitioner by holding that the said charge is not proved.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation that Civil suit has already been filed and therefore all these issues can be thrashed out in the Civil suit and that the Writ Petition should not be entertained does not merit any consideration.
The very claim made in the suit is only a consequential action of the respondent Corporation in furtherance of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. If the impugned order itself is bad in the eye of law, the very cause of action for filing of the Civil Suit itself vanishes and therefore the Writ Petition, is certainly maintainable as prayed and the pendency of the Civil Suit is no way a bar for this Court entertaining the Writ Petition and dispose of the same on
merits.
Judgement:
The Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records in AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent, and to quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.
Conclusion:
The appellate authority should consider the charges, discuss the
explanation offered by the delinquent officer or employee concerned one assess the same independently before concurring or dissenting with the findings of disciplinary authority. Merely endorsing the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed is certainly deplorable, especially in a case where the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The Court interpreted in right way and ordered the Civil Supplies to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR
