Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs V.Subramanian on 31 August, 2021
W.A.No.839 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A.No.839 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.7346 of 2018
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
Transport Department (H1),
Secretariat, Fort. St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department,
Velachery Main Road,Velachery, Chennai -32.
3.The Automobile Engineer (I/C),
Government Automobile Workshop,
Cuddalore-2.
4.The Enquiry Officer and
Deputy Zonal Director,
Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department,
Madurai Zone, Madurai – 20. ... Appellants
vs
V.Subramanian ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the
final order dated 02.02.2018, made in W.P.No.900 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.A.No.839 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.K.Raja
for Mr.M.Kaviveerappan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana.J., )
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge made in W.P.No.900 of 2012 dated 02.02.2018.
2.The writ petition was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner to quash
the proceeding dated 12.05.2011, which was issued against him by the first
appellant herein. It appears that there has been a serious allegation made against
the respondent while he was working as a Typist in the appellant Department. He
was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (D&A) Rules, alleging that he has committed forgery and obtained a
loan from Valayamadevi Melpathi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He was also placed under suspension pending
disciplinary proceedings. During enquiry, the charges were proved and his further
explanation was called for. In response, the respondent submitted a detailed
explanation. Considering his representation, an order was passed by the second
appellant cancelling the enquiry proceedings and ordering appointment of a fresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.839 of 2018
enquiry officer and directing him to proceed with the enquiry.
3.In the interregnum, the respondent filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.41969 of 2006, challenging his suspension order and the same was
disposed of by this Court on 03.11.2006, with a direction to pass final order on
the charge memo within a period of four weeks. However, the second appellant,
without conducting the proceedings afresh, based on the enquiry conducted
earlier, called for explanation from the respondent in regard to the earlier enquiry
report and passed the final order dismissing the respondent from service. Against
which, the respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellant and the appeal
was rejected on 12.05.2011, confirming the order of dismissal.
4.Aggrieved over the same, the respondent filed another writ petition in
W.P.No.900 of 2012 and the Writ Court found that the charge against the
petitioner is one of forgery, which is serious offence and that cannot be viewed
lightly. However, taking note of the fact that when the authority cancelled the
enquiry proceeding and appointed another Enquiry Officer to proceed with the
enquiry, the order impugned therein ought not to have been passed based on the
erstwhile enquiry report, set aside the order of the suspension dated 04.12.2006
and the proceedings dated 12.05.2011 and directed to proceed with the enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.839 of 2018
afresh, pursuant to the charge memo dated 29.01.2004. A further direction was
also given to place the writ petitioner under suspension till the enquiry was
completed. The acquittal of the writ petitioner in the criminal case for the very
same charge was taken note of by the learned Single Judge.
5.Since the learned Single Judge has rightly ordered de-novo enquiry,
we could not understand why the Government has preferred the present appeal, as
the Government cannot be aggrieved by the de-novo enquiry. The appeal itself is
an unnecessary exercise. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appeal
deserves to be dismissed and the appellants are directed to complete the enquiry
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
31.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
rst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.839 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rst
W.A.No.839 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.7346 of 2018
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
