Madras High Court
R.Raju vs The Chennai Corporation on 23 December, 2021
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No. 18511 of 2014
R.Raju ..Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chennai Corporation
Rep. By its Commissioner,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai -600003.
2.The Zonal Officer,
Zone -V, Chennai Corporation
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the order No. Ma.A.5.Na.Ka.No. C1/11100/06 dated
29.6.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent read with the appellate Order No.
Ma.A.5 Na. Ka.No.C1/11100/06 dated 17.11.2010 issued by the 1st
respondent quash the same as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st respondent Corporation to grant the terminal
benefits due to the petitioner after counting his service with all attendant
service benefits with interest.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
For Petitioner : M/s.S.C.Chezhiyan
For Respondents : M/s.M.Dhanisha
For Mrs.Karthika Ashok, Standing Counsel
for Corporation of Chennai.
ORDER
The writ petitioner had joined in the respondent-Corporation on
25.04.1974 as Sanitory Worker. On 25.06.2004 he was suspended from
service due to arrest on the ground of accepting illegal gratification along with
another person namely V. Subramani. The Petitioner was arrayed as second
accused in C.C.No. 3 of 2007 and charges were framed and taken on file
before the Sessions Court, Chennai. After elaborate consideration of the oral
and documentary evidence, the Sessions Court acquitted the petitioner by
judgment dated 21.11.2009. Based on the acquittal, the petitioner's
suspension was revoked. The petitioner made representation on 17.03.2010
and subsequently, the petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2010. The
enquiry officer by a report dated 23.06.2010 found the petitioner not guilty of
the charges, but prior to the retirement of petitioner, the 2 nd respondent issued
the impugned order dated 29.06.2010 differing from the enquiry officer's
findings and imposed a punishment of censure. Thereafter the petitioner has
preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent by order
dated 17.11.2010 without considering the fundamental facts of the case, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
simply confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, another person
namely V.Subramnai who arrayed as first accused in C.C.No. 3 of 2007 and
inflicted with the punishment of censure by the respondent-Corporation had
acquitted from the said criminal case. Subsequent to the said acquittal, his
suspension was revoked and the suspension period was regularised by the
respondents. Therefore, the petitioner who arrayed as 2nd accused in the said
criminal case is also entitle for the similar relief .
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent strongly
contended that due to the criminal case registered as against the petitioner
and arrayed as 2nd accused in the said criminal case, the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated and awarded punishment of censure. But the
learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent had not disputed the
fact that subsequent to the acquittal from the criminal case as against the
V.Subramani who arrayed as 1st accused in the said criminal case, the period
of suspension was regularised by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
4. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner was removed from
service and charges were framed on the basis of arrest on the ground of
accepting illegal gratification along with another person. Consequent to the
acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated into service and permitted to retire
from service. Even though the charges framed against the petitioner held not
proved by the enquiry officer, the 2nd respondent had imposed punishment of
censure on the ground that the petitioner had caused disrepute to the
Corporation, without affording opportunity to the petitioner to give
explanation. Further, in view of the acquittal, the suspension of V.Subramani
who arrayed as A1 in C.C.No. 3/2007 was revoked and suspension period
was regularised by the respondent.
5. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact and also considering the fact
that similarly placed person was granted relief, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner is also entitled for the similar relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that the respondent shall consider the
representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the light of the
proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No. A17/2465/2015, dated
16.04.2015, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No costs.
23.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ak
To
1.The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai -600003.
2.The Zonal Officer,
Zone -V, Chennai Corporation
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
ak
W.P.No.18511 of 2014
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
