W.A.No.692 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.692 of 2013
R.Dhanabalan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
through Chairman cum Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
2.The Director (Planning and Projects),
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
3.J.L.Mehta,
Director (Planning and Projects),
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 07.01.2013 made in W.A.No.8187 of 2002.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Dhanabalan, Party-in-person
For Respondents : Mr.N.Nithianandam
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY,J.) Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 07.01.2013 recorded on W.P.No.8187 of 2002. This appeal is by the original writ petitioner.
2. At the outset it is noted that, the appellant has appeared in person. He is a Senior Citizen. Had he continued in service he would have attained the age of superannuation in the year 2013. We have heard him for hours together in both the sessions today i.e. pre-lunch session and post - lunch session with all the patience and the sympathy. We have also, at one stage, offered to him that, he may be provided legal aid if he desires, which he has declined. It is in this background, we have heard the appellant in person.
3. The writ petitioner/appellant was an officer of the respondent – Corporation, who was removed from service by way of punishment order dated 14.02.2002, which was challenged by way of writ petition being W.P.No.8187 of 2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.10.2003, which was restored at his request in 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 the year 2011 and was taken up for hearing and decided by the order under challenge dated 07.01.2013. The challenge to the removal order dated 14.02.2002 is rejected by learned single Judge vide order dated 07.01.2013, which is questioned in this appeal and we have heard the appellant in person giving him full leeway to substantiate how the termination order dated 14.02.2002, according to him was unsustainable and further how the order of learned single Judge dated 07.01.2013 is erroneous calling for any interference under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
3.1. It is noted that, the appellant has extensively taken this Court through the charges for which he was removed from service. Those charges are as under:-
“1. That Shri R.Dhanabalan, Deputy Chief Engineer (Mechl.,) is in the habit of drafting and sending representations and unwarranted letters containing false allegations against superiors and others.
In this connection he was already issued with a D.O. Letter No.P&A/CPM/DA/98/394 dated 06.04.98, wherein his attention was 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 drawn to sub-rule (xxvi) of N.L.C.
Employees Conduct Rules informing him that the above acts would constitute misconduct punishable under N.L.C.
Employees control and Appeal Rules and advising him to refrain from such acts. In spite of the specific information furnished to him the individual continued to draft and send such letters.
2. That Shri R.Dhanabalan is refusing to report on his day-to-day work to the Chief Engineer, System Monitoring and instead he prefers false complaints against the Chief Engineer / System Monitoring to various Authorities.
3. That Shri R.Dhanabalan, DCE/Mech., was personally called, counselled and advised separately by the Director (P&P), DGM/System Monitoring and CPM/P&A to refrain from drafting and sending representations and unwarranted letters containing false allegations against superiors and others. He was also advised 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 to report on his day-to-day work to Chief Engineer / System Monitoring and carry our instructions given to him by his superiors. In spite of the above counselling and advise Shri R.Dhanabalan, DCE did not amend himself instead continued to indulge in the above acts.
4. That Shri R.Dhanabalan, DCE/Mechl.
had in his letter dated 04.05.1998
threatened the CPM that the DO letter
issued to him has to be withdrawn
otherwise he will inform the Central
Vigilance.”
3.2. He has taken this Court through all the charges and proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and the satisfaction recorded by the Disciplinary Authority line by line, to contend that, the findings recorded by both - the Enquiry Officer so also the Disciplinary Authority are perverse, there was no evidence against the appellant and there was violation of principles of natural justice. The re- appreciation of evidence, which according to him, is impermissible was done by the learned single Judge is also the grievance voiced before 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 us. It is submitted by the appellant that, the order of learned Single Judge needs to be quashed and set aside and the removal order dated 14.02.2002 also needs to be quashed and set aside and the appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Digamber Vaishnav & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal Nos.428-430 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019).
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation has submitted that, the order passed by learned Single Judge is just and proper and the removal order was in due compliance of all statutory provisions, so also legal requirements and therefore rejection to the writ petition is just and proper and no interference be made by this Court. It is noted that learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation has also taken this Court through the correspondence entered into by the appellant with the management leading to the institution of the disciplinary proceedings which ultimately culminated in removal order. It is submitted by him that this appeal be dismissed.
6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013
5. Having heard the appellant in person and learned Advocate for the respondent, we find as under.
5.1 The termination order dated 14th February, 2002 refers to 10 documents, which are as under:-
“1. Charge Memo. No.P&A/CPM/DA/98-167 dated 10.6.98.
2. Enquiry Report/findings dated 06.02.2001.
3. Memo No.D(P&P)/T-365/SM/2001 dated 08.02.2001.
4. Shri R.Dhanabalan's objections dated 17.02.2001.
5. Memo No.D(P&P)/T.631/SM/2001 dated 13.03.2001.
6. Shri R.Dhanabalan's letter dated 21.03.2001.
7. Lr. No.D(P&P)T.745/SM/2001 dated 24.03.2001.
8. Orders dated 23.11.2001 in W.P.No.6571/2001 of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras.
7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013
9. Shri R.Dhanabalan's reply dated 10.12.2001 to the Provisional Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2001.
10. Orders dated 07.02.2002 of the
Hon'ble High Court, Madras in
W.A.No.2772/2001.”
5.2 We have been taken through those documents by the
appellant. On conjoint consideration of the charges levelled against the appellant and the material noted above, the point for consideration before the Court is whether rejection of the writ petition by learned Single Judge can be termed to be erroneous, which may call for any interference by us under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
6. On conjoint consideration of all the material we find that, learned single Judge, in the facts of this case, can not be said to be erroneous in any manner and neither any relief could be granted to the writ petitioner at the relevant time, nor at this belated stage we consider it either legally sustainable or feasible to grant any relief to 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 the writ petitioner. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed. The argument that, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, or that this is the case of no evidence, or that there is breach of principles of natural justice, according to us, are not legally sustainable grounds, once the documents which runs into hundreds of pages, which we have extensively gone into, are taken note of. In totality, we find that, neither the writ petitioner is entitled to any relief nor at this stage the same is feasible.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(P.U.J.) (D.B.C.J.)
09.09.2022
Index:No
raa/18
9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 To
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Block-1, Neyveli-607 801.
2.The Director (Planning and Projects), Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Block-1, Neyveli-607 801.
3.J.L.Mehta, Director (Planning and Projects), Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Block-1, Neyveli-607 801.
10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.692 of 2013 PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
raa W.A.No.692 of 2013 09.09.2022 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis