Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S.Sathishkumar on 6 January, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7162 of 2020
1.The Managing Director,
TASMAC,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
CMDA Tower - 2,
4th Floor, Egmore,
Chennai - 8.
2.Senior Regional Manager,
TASMAC,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.Divisional Manager,
TASMAC,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
Thanjavur. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
S.Sathishkumar ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5551 of 2019, dated 19.11.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J)
This appeal is preferred by the appellants, aggrieved over the order of
the learned Single Judge, who upon hearing the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, was pleased to set aside the order of
punishment imposed and consequently, allowed the writ petition as prayed for.
2.The respondent herein was working as a Salesman with the
appellants. Four charges have been framed against him. Of the four charges,
according to the Enquiry Officer, two charges were not proved and accordingly,
the respondent was exonerated from the said charges and the remaining two
charges are pertaining to mixing water with the liquor bottles by reducing the
concentration of the liquor content and thereby, reducing the quality.
3.The order of the third appellant/disciplinary authority was
challenged by the respondent before the second appellant/appellate authority.
The second appellant/appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the
respondent. Aggrieved over the said order, the respondent herein filed revision
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
before the first appellant/revisional authority. The first appellant/revisional
authority has also confirmed the orders passed by the appellants 2 and 3,
holding that charges 3 and 4 are accordingly proved.
4.The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition inter alia
holding that charges 3 and 4 are connected to charges 1 and 2 and there is non-
application of mind, as the appellants proceeded against the respondent on the
premise that all the charges were proved, though the Enquiry Officer himself
found that charges 1 and 2 are not proved.
5.Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that it is not correct to state that the appellants did not take
into consideration the fact that charges 1 and 2 are not proved. In fact, they
dealt with charges 3 and 4 alone. On these charges, it was found through the
examination at the Lab that the concentration of the Liquor is lesser, as the
percentage of Alcohol was not to the required one. It was the responsibility of
the respondent to maintain the liquor bottles at the time of sale.
6.Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the respondent has given his explanation and the same has not
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
been considered properly. In this case, imposition of punishment of dismissal is
onerous. Though the respondent was exonerated from charges 1 and 2, what
weighed in the minds of the appellants was that the said charges were also
proved and that was the reason, the order of dismissal was passed.
7.We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, though the reasons assigned may not be correct. Charges 3 and 4
are to the effect that the respondent mixed water with the liquor bottles. There
is no charge of misappropriation. It may be a case of dereliction of duty, as an
explanation has been given by the respondent that when the bottles were taken,
they were not sealed and the respondent suspected whether the same bottles
were supplied for test and requested them to furnish the Lab Report and that he
was not responsible for the same. The explanation given by the respondent was
not considered in the right perspective. In any case, the proved charges would
not warrant punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
respondent is correct in stating that though the appellants passed order to the
effect that charges 3 and 4 are proved, the other charges were also weighed in
the minds of the appellants while imposing punishment. It is not stated that the
respondent has mixed anything else with the liquor bottles and enrich himself.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
8.Thus, considering the above, we are of the view that while the
respondent is entitled for reinstatement, is not entitled for any back wages from
the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. Accordingly, the order of
the learned Single Judge stands modified to the effect that the respondent is
entitled for reinstatement without back wages. The appellants are directed to
reinstate the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that we have passed this
order by taking into consideration the doctrine of proportionality.
9.This Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No [M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
Internet :Yes 06.01.2021
smn2
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
smn2
W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2020
06.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
