Madras High Court

M. Surendran (Died) vs The Chairman / Managing Director on 13 December, 2021

                                                                         W.P(MD) No.13332 of 2014



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           DATED      : 13.12.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY

                                         W.P(MD) No. 13332 of 2014 and
                                          M.P(MD).Nos.1 to 3 of 2014


                    1. M. Surendran (died)
                    2. Sundar
                    3.Bhuvaneswaran
                    4.Jothimani
                    5.Bhoopathy
                    6.Malai                                                  :Petitioners
                    (P2 to P6 are substituted vide Court order dated
                    24.11.2021 in WMP(MD).No.5879 of 2017)


                                                           ..Vs..


                    1.The Chairman / Managing Director,
                    United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                    No.24, Whites Road, Chennai.

                    2.The Deputy General Manager,
                    United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                    No.24, Whites Road, Chennai.

                    3.The Regional Manager,
                    United India Insurance Company Limited,
                    7A, West Veli Street, Madurai – 625 001.               : Respondents



                   1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              W.P(MD) No.13332 of 2014




                    PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of to
                    issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
                    dismissal order No. Ho. G – 48, (CBI): 16:2010, dated 23.03.2010 passed
                    by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to
                    reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all other benefits.


                                  For Petitioner         : Mr.M. Kumar

                                  For Respondents        : Mr.G. Prabhu Rajadurai


                                                     ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order

passed by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the

petitioner with full back wages and all other benefits.

2. The petitioner joined in the respondent Company as a

Development Officer on 10.10.1983 in City Branch -1, Madurai and his

service were confirmed on 01.11.1984, then, promoted as Assistant

Administrate Officer on 07.02.1990, then as Administrative Officer in the

Divisional Office -I, Madurai in the year 1997. Subsequently, transferred

to Divisional Office – IV, Madurai for assisting the third party Motor

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.13332 of 2014

Accident Claims Department to the Divisional Manager. In the year 2003,

he was designated as Assistant Manager in the Divisional Office,

Palakkadu and thereafter, transferred to Divisional Office at Sivakasi as

Assistant Manager in the year 2006 and then, transferred to Divisional

Office, Virudhunagar as Assistant Manager in 2007. The petitioner was

working in the Divisional Office – IV at Madurai during 1997 as

Administrative Officer and he referred the MCOP (Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal) cases to the Lok Adalat for settlement. The allegation

against the petitioner is that inspite of violation in the policy condition, the

cases were referred to settlement. Then CBI Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Chennai registered a criminal case against the petitioner under sections

120(b) IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 r/w. Section 120(B) and 420 IPC. The CBI filed case before the

Special Judge, Madurai in C.C.Nos.11 to 17 of 2004 and vide Judgment

dated 18.12.2009 the petitioner was acquitted. However, in C.C.No.10 of

2004, the petitioner was convicted under Section 420 IPC and under other

two Sections 120(b) IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(D) of Prevention of

Corruption Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl. A. No. 430 of

2009 before this Court and the CBI has also filed Crl.A.No.301 of 2010

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.13332 of 2014

against his acquittal. In the meanwhile, the respondents initiated

disciplinary proceedings under the CDA Rules General Insurance

(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. The petitioner was

terminated from service on 23.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was

acquitted in the criminal appeal vide order dated 12.11.2014. Based on the

acquittal in the criminal proceedings the respondents have reinstated the

petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner died in the year 2015.

Thereafter, legal heirs substituted themselves in the proceedings.

3. The respondents filed counter stating the criminal appeal

was pending and based on the conviction the petitioner's service was

terminated.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

5. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the termination

order dated 23.03.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the

petitioner was acquitted from all criminal cases on 12.11.2014 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.13332 of 2014

therefore he is entitled to be reinstated into service. Pending writ petition

the respondents submitted that the petitioner was reinstated into service.

6. Now the issue of backwages alone ought to be considered in

this writ petition. The contention of respondents is that the petitioner is not

entitled to backwages and relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court rendered in 1996 (11) SCC 603 'Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs.

Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board', wherein it has been

stated as under:

“The question of backwages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action is found to be un sustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharge the duties. In that context his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in its own background. In this case, the petitioner has involved in Crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to payment of backwages.”

7. On perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the petitioner

has served as Administrative Officer in the United India Insurance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.13332 of 2014

Company Limited. He was assigned work to refer the cases to Lok Adalat.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he has referred some of the

cases to Lok Adalat and in those cases the Policy had expired. However,

when the query was posed to the respondents, whether the Administrative

Officer is the authority to take a final decision to refer the case to Lok

Adalat, the respondents stated that the higher authorities will take a final

decision not the Administrate Officer. Moreover the petitioner died on

22,10.2015. Therefore, this Court to meet the ends of justice is of the

considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the backwages.

Hence, this Court is setting aside the impugned order passed by the second

respondent, dated 23.03.2010 and direct the respondents to pay the

terminal benefits and 50% of backwages to the family of the deceased. The

said exercise shall be disbursed within a period of four weeks from the