Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S. Pugalenthi on 3 December, 2021
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
and C.M.P.No. 10125 of 2021
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited, 19,
Kumbakonam Division – II,
Trichi – 620 001.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited, 19,
Kumbakonam Division – II,
Trichi – 620 001. ... Appellants
Vs
1. S. Pugalenthi,
S/o. Siva Subramonia Pillai,
Staff No.2515, No.3/46, South Street,
Rajakkamangalam Post,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Transport (undertakings) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
aside the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.No.41316 of 2006.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Amal Raj [R1]
Ms.E.Indumathi [R2]
Government Advocate
******
JUDGMENT
[Judgment was delivered by J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD., J]
The above writ appeal was filed challenging the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.41316 of 2006 dated 10.11.2020.
2. Heard Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr.A.Amal Raj, learned counsel for first respondent and
Ms.E.Indumathi, learned Government Advocate for second respondent.
3. The first respondent was working as a Junior Engineer (Civil) at
Chozhan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. When he was in service,
a charge memo was issued to him and subsequently, an Enquiry Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
was appointed and the charges leveled against him were proved and the
order was passed on 15.04.1991. The said order was challenged before
this Court in W.P.No.21808 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated
13.12.2004, setting aside the report of the Enquiry Officer and directed
to conduct a fresh enquiry and examine three witnesses viz., watchman,
load-man and one Thangam and also to give a opportunity to the first
respondent to cross-examine those witnesses and dispose the matter in
accordance with law.
4. The Enquiry Officer conducted a fresh enquiry and examined
five witnesses and marked 14 documents and gave findings that the
charges leveled against the first respondent were proved. Based on the
enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order to remove the
first respondent from service. Challenging the order of the Disciplinary
Authority, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him
and challenging the same he has also filed a revision before the
Government. The Government also dismissed the revision. Challenging
all the three orders, the first respondent has filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.41316 of 2006 before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
5. The charge leveled against the first respondent was that he made
an attempt to remove the property viz., 4 G.I. Sheets of the Transport
Corporation, against which, the first respondent filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.13071 of 1992 and this Court has set aside the same and gave a
direction to conduct a fresh enquiry. Out of three witnesses, two
witnesses were examined as directed by this Court and stated that the
loadman was not examined as he was not available. Eventhough the first
respondent has given notice to the appellants as well as the second
respondent to produce certain documents. But, the appellants and the
second respondent have not produced such documents and also not given
any reason for non-production of the documents, which is against the
principles of natural justice. The grievance of the first respondent is that
he was not given proper opportunity for examination and even in the
appeal, the Appellate Authority has not discussed anything about the
merits of the case and not discussed about the appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence and had simply endorsed the report of the
Enquiry Officer without giving any independent findings. The first
respondent has filed an application to produce certain documents, despite
that no documents were furnished. The above facts of the case reveal that
the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law by referring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
material, evidence and the principles of natural justice was also not
followed in this case.
6. Thus from the above facts, it is crystal clear and evident that
(i) No documents were furnished to the first respondent during the
enquiry despite his application for the same.
(ii) No proper opportunity for examination was given to the first
respondent even in the appeal stage.
(iii) The third witness load-man was not examined as directed by
this Court.
(iv) No appreciation of documentary or oral evidence.
(v) There is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. In view of the above findings/facts of the case, we do not find
any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.41316 of 2006 dated 10.11.2020 and the same is confirmed.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.D.,J] [J.S.N.P., J]
03.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mp
To
The Secretary to Government
Transport (undertakings) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
W.A.No.1622 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.10125 of 2021
03.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
