Madras High Court
Mr.K.Srinivasan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 July, 2021
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.22810, 22812 & 22815 of 2019
Mr.K.Srinivasan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to
Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary/ Commissioner
for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Kuralagam, Chennai - 600 001.
3.The Engineer-in-Chief,
WRD & Chief Engineer (General) PWD,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
of the 1st respondent pertaining to G.O.(D) No.118, Public Works (E1)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
Department, dated 27.05.2019 and quash the same, and consequently
direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and to grant
all attendant and monetary benefits including posting and seniority with
effect from 24.07.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for M/s.P.Wilson Associates
For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan
Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein was levelled with certain charges and on
the similar set of charges, a criminal case was also registered against him
by the CBCID, Tiruvannamalai, which ended in an acquittal.
3. When the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.29900 of 2014, in which he had sought for quashing the order of
punishment, by which he was compulsorily retired from services, the
order passed in the writ petition came to be challenged before a Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1713 of 2014, wherein the
petitioner had raised a specific ground that since the charges in the
criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are one and the
same, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court dated
27.04.2016 requires to be considered and the punishment has to be
interfered with. The Hon'ble Division Bench was of the view that such a
ground for consideration of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case
could be raised before the disciplinary authority and accordingly granted
liberty to the petitioner to submit a further reply to the second show
cause notice within a specified time. The relevant portion of the order of
the Hon'ble Division Bench passed in W.A.No.1713 of 2014 reads as
follows:-
"3. The sheet anchor of the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant was arrayed as the 4th accused in the
criminal case registered by the CBCID,
Tiruvannamalai and after full trial, the appellant has
been acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum
Special Court, Tiruvannamalai by order dated
27.04.2016. It is submitted that the charge sheet in
the criminal case is also on the same set of facts. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
our considered view, we cannot examine this
contention. However, it is well open to the appellant
to raise such a contention before the disciplinary
authority.
4. In the light of the above, the stay granted by
the Court restraining the respondents from passing
final orders is vacated and the appellant is directed
to submit a further reply to the second show cause
notice within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, after which, the
disciplinary authority shall pass final orders within
a period of thirty days from the date on which
appellant submitted the further reply. Till then, the
appellant shall be permitted to continue in the place
where he has been posted as on date based on the
interim order granted by another Division Bench in
this appeal on 26.03.2018."
4. In accordance with the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein had given his further
reply to the second show cause notice on 09.03.2019, wherein he had
raised a specific ground stating that, since the charges framed in the
criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings are on the same set of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
facts, he shall be absolved from all the charges framed against him. In
support of such a ground, the petitioner had also relied on the findings of
the Hon'ble Division Bench passed in W.A.No.1713 of 2014.
5. However, through the present impugned order dated 27.05.2019,
the first respondent herein, without reference to the liberty granted to the
petitioner and the directions of the Hon'ble Division made in
W.A.No.1713 of 2014, had totally ignored the ground raised by the
petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice dated 09.03.2019
that the charges in the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings are
one and the same and that he was acquitted from the criminal case, the
first respondent herein had rejected the further appeal and confirmed the
original punishment of compulsory retirement. Apparently, the impugned
order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the first respondent herein cannot be
sustained, in view of the non-adherence to the directions of the Hon'ble
Division Bench.
6. This Court is of the view that if the first respondent herein is
granted one more opportunity to comply with the directions of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
Hon'ble Division Bench as stated above, the ends of justice could be
secured.
7. In the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated
27.05.2019 passed by the first respondent, is quashed and the matter is
remitted back to the first respondent herein. Consequently, the first
respondent is directed to pass a reasoned speaking order in accordance
with the specific directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench passed in
W.A.No.1713 of 2014 dated 13.12.2018, after consideration of the
petitioner's grounds raised in his further reply to the second show cause
notice dated 09.03.2019. The first respondent herein shall endeavor to
pass such an order atleast within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary/ Commissioner
for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Kuralagam, Chennai - 600 001.
3.The Engineer-in-Chief,
WRD & Chief Engineer (General) PWD,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk
W.P.No.23100 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.22810, 22812 & 22815 of 2019
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
