Madras High Court
The District Manager vs S.Subramani on 29 January, 2021
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 29.01.2021
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.23011 of 2019
The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
(TASMAC Ltd),
Krishnagiri District. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Subramani, S/o Sellan
2. The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
(TASMAC) Ltd.,
Salem District. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.21702 of 2016 on the file of this Court.
Page No.1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
For appellant : Mr.N.Damodaran
For respondents: Mr.K.Gandhikumar for R-1
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J)
This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 30.07.2018
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition in W.P.No.21702 of
2016. The said Writ Petition was filed praying for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned dismissal
order passed in Na.Ka.No.101/2014/CV-1, dated 30.04.2015 by the
appellant and the consequential confirmation order passed in
Se.Mu.No.3550/2015/A, dated 25.08.2015 on the file of the second
respondent herein, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents before the Writ Court to reinstate the first respondent/writ
petitioner in service with all other consequential monetary benefits. Upon
hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ
Petition and held as follows:
"6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for
Page No.2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
the parties and going through the materials on record,
especially the submissions made that in similar cases, this
Court has directed the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider
the punishment / penalty imposed, this writ petition stands
disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the
disciplinary authority to revisit/reconsider the punishment of
removal imposed by any other suitable punishment as it may
deem fit and proper in the facts and situations within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. However, it is made clear that in the event of
substitution of punishment of removal by any other
punishment, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back
wages for the period during which he remains out of duty.
7. With the aforesaid order, this writ petition
stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
also closed."
2. The first respondent herein (writ petitioner) was appointed as
TASMAC Salesman in Achamangalam 'X' Road, Krishnagiri in Shop
No.2944, Krishnagiri District on consolidated wages of Rs.5,000/-. On
24.01.2014, the Senior Regional Manager, Salem (second respondent
herein) had inspected the said shop along with the appellant and found
certain irregularities in selling the liquor in loose. Hence, on 06.02.2014, the
first respondent/writ petitioner was suspended from service. Thereafter,
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. Ultimately, the
Page No.3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
Enquiry Officer found that the first respondent/writ petitioner is guilty of the
charge(s) levelled against him, the same having been proved. The
disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and
imposed a penalty of dismissal from service against the first respondent/writ
petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent/writ petitioner preferred an appeal
to the appellate authority, who confirmed the order of dismissal from
service, against which, the first respondent herein preferred the Writ
Petition, which was disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
3. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the first
respondent/writ petitioner that the punishment of dismissal from service is
shockingly disproportionate, more so, when the same had been passed
without taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances that the writ
petitioner is a poor salesman and his family is depending on him. It was also
contended that, in the event of the disciplinary/appellate authority re-visiting
the punishment by any other punishment, the writ petitioner may not claim
any back wages for the period he remained out of duty.
4. The learned Single Judge made it clear that in the event of
substitution of punishment of dismissal by any other punishment, the first
Page No.4/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
respondent/writ petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the
period during which he remained out of duty.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/TASMAC submitted that
the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the charge(s)
levelled against the first respondent/writ petitioner. The first respondent/writ
petitioner had committed the offence of shortage of money and also sold
spurious liquor and therefore, leniency need not be shown to him. In such
event, more than 20,000 employees working in the TASMAC (respondents
in the Writ Petition), will take advantage and will indulge in this kind of
irregularity.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is not accepting the submission made on behalf of the
appellant/TASMAC to the effect that the other employees will indulge in
such kind of activities. The learned Single Judge, by carefully considering
the facts, had assigned the reason that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and directed
reinstatement by considering the family background of the first
Page No.5/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
respondent/writ petitioner.
8. Moreover, we find that it was the contention of the first
respondent/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that in several
other similar cases, the same order as that of the present one, had been
passed by this Court and thus, he left the matter to the Court for passing
appropriate orders.
9. Accordingly, while considering the family background of the
first respondent/writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge had exercised his
discretion and passed the order as extracted above.
10. Absolutely, we do not find any compelling circumstances
warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
(R.P.S.J) (S.S.K.J)
29.01.2021
Speaking Order: Yes
cs
To
Page No.6/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
1. The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
(TASMAC Ltd), Krishnagiri District.
2. The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
(TASMAC) Ltd.,
Salem District.
Page No.7/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment dated 29.01.2021
in Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
R.SUBBIAH, J
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
cs
Writ Appeal No.3585 of 2019
29.01.2021
Page No.8/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
