Madras High Court
Manidevan vs The District Manager on 7 January, 2021
W.P.No.179 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.179 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.244 of 2021
(Heard through VC)
Manidevan .. Petitioner
-vs-
The District Manager,
TASMAC Office,
Perambalure District,
Perambalur. .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made in
impugned order Na.Ka.No.3581/C.V/2020/A1 dated 06.04.2020 passed
by the respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondent to revoke the suspension order passed by the respondent
and permit the petitioner to join juty at the TASMAC-Respondent
department to secure the ends of justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathishkumar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.179 of 2021
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order in
Na.Ka.No.3581/C.V/2020/A1 dated 06.04.2020 passed by the
respondent herein and consequently, directing the respondent to
revoke the suspension order passed by them and permit the petitioner
to join juty at the TASMAC-Respondent department.
2. Mr.K.Sathishkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf
of the respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken
up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on
06.04.2020 on the ground that on account of Covid-19 situation all the
wine shops have been closed with effect from 24.03.2020 to
14.04.2020 and that the petitioner has involved in the sale of liquor
bottle during such period. The relief sought for by the petitioner that
the suspension need to be interfered with, cannot be gone into in this
writ petiton. Taking note of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the recent decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of
India through its Secretary and another, reported in 2015 (7)
SCC 291, the case of the petitioner to reinstate him in a non sensitive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.179 of 2021
post may be considered, provided there are no legal impediments.
Disposal of the writ petition will not preclude the respondent from
issuing charge memo after taking explanation, conducting domestic
enquiry and impose any punishment, if the charges are established.
This Court has elaborately dealt with the similar issue in W.P.No.13 of
2021 (V.Mohanraj vs. The Secretary and two others), and passed
a detailed order on 06.01.2021, holding as under:
"6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Court is not going to direct the respondents to promote
the petitioner to the post of Inspector by including him in the
panel and it is for the respondents to consider the same. It is
needless to mention that if any departmental proceedings have
been commenced or initiated, it is open to the respondents to
proceed with the same so as to bring the proceedings to a
logical end, dehors pendency of the criminal case, as both
criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings can
go on simultaneously and the criminal case should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt by adducing oral and documentary
evidence, whereas charges in the departmental proceedings
should be established on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. If Criminal Proceedings are not initiated or
concluded within one year from the date of FIR, there is no
hindrance on the part of the employer to proceed with the
departmental proceedings on day to-day basis and bring the
issue to a logical end at the earliest point of time and the
employee will have to participate in the departmental
proceedings and shall not attempt to adopt dilatory tactics.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.179 of 2021
7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish v.
and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, has clearly laid
down a dictum as under:
“19. In the circumstances and taking into
consideration all aspects mentioned above as also
keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts
below have exercised their discretion in favour of
staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do
not consider it fit to vacate the said order
straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our
opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court
dealing with the criminal charges against the
respondents to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible but in any case within a
period of one year from the date of this order. We
hope and trust that the Trial Court will take
effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are
served, appear and are examined. The Court may
for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than
a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary.
We also expect the accused in the criminal case to
co-operate with the trial Court for an early
completion of the proceedings. We say so because
experience has shown that trials often linger on for
a long time on account of non- availability of the
defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or
on account of adjournments sought by them on the
flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be
avoided. In case, however, the trial is not
completed within the period of one year from the
date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial
Court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the respondents shall
be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer
concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case
stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year
from the date of the order.
20. In the result, we allow these appeals but
only in part and to the extent indicated above. The
parties are left to bear their own costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.179 of 2021
8. For the purpose of brevity, this Court makes it very
clear that if any criminal proceedings have been initiated after
commencement of the departmental proceedings, the one
year time limit mentioned supra will not apply to those cases
and the departmental proceedings shall go on uninterruptedly.
Invariably, the offenders, who have committed grave offences,
are being acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, owing
to missing link in the chain of events and are trying to get
back the entire backwages and for those persons, employment
itself is a lottery.
9. In the present case on hand, even according to the
petitioner, a charge memo has been issued as early as on
18.12.2015 and in case any departmental proceedings had
already commenced, the same shall be proceeded on a day
to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven
working days at any point of time and brought to a logical
conclusion at the earliest. The petitioner shall co-operate for
early attainment of the proceedings.
10. With the above observation, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs."
4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.01.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking order : Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.179 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi
To
The District Manager,
TASMAC Office,
Perambalure District,
Perambalur.
W.P.No.179 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.244 of 2021
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
