Madras High Court
The Director vs A.Kamalam on 8 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD) No.3432 of 2020
1.The Director,
Integrated Child Development Programme Department,
Tharamani, Chennai-113.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thanthonimalai,
Karur District.
3.The District Project Co-ordinator,
Integrated Child Development Programme,
Karur District,
Karur. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
A.Kamalam
Daughter of Alagiri Raman,
Anganwadi Worker,
Vettaiyarpalayam,
K.Paramathi,
Karur District. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the judgment dated 22.01.2020 in W.P(MD) No.17408 of 2015 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
JUDGEMENT
************
[Judgement of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This appeal filed by the Director, Integrated Child Development of
Programme Department, Tharamani, Chennai, is directed against the order dated
22.01.2020 in W.P(MD) No.17408 of 2015 filed by the respondent herein.
2. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the
second appellant dated 10.04.2015. By the said order, the second appellant
terminated the services of the writ petitioner on the ground that she has
produced the false educational qualification certificate, certifying as if she has
passed 8th standard. The learned Writ Court had allowed the writ petition
primarily for the reason that no enquiry was conducted and secondly, on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
ground that the writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on
30.06.2018. The correctness of the said order is being questioned in this appeal.
3. Admittedly, the respondent has not been permitted to retire, which
is an order, that can be passed by an employer even at the verge of retirement.
However, before terminating the respondent, a charge memo has to be issued,
enquiry has to be conducted and only if the charges are proved and the enquiry
report is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, an order of termination can be
passed. The order of termination simpliciter cannot be passed against the
respondent, because she is a permanent worker, having joined the post as Helper
in the year 1982 and promoted as Worker in the year 1994. Therefore, the
permanent employee cannot be removed from service without conducting an
enquiry, especially, when there is a charge of production of false educational
certificate. Therefore, to that extent, the learned Writ Court was right in setting
aside the order of termination dated 13.04.2015. But we are not agreeable with
regard to the direction given for directing the respondent to be permitted to
retire from service and to sanction all retirement benefits. The Writ Court ought
to have remanded the matter to the second appellant, with a direction to issue a
charge memo, conduct an enquiry and then, pass an order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
4.The learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the
appellants had earlier produced a report of the first respondent dated
04.08.2020, wherein a recommendation has made to revert the writ petitioner to
a lower post and permit her to retire in the said post on attaining the age of
superannuation i.e., on 30.06.2016. The operative portion of the
communication reads as follows:-
vdnt nkw;fhZk; Mizapd; mog;gilapy;
jpUkjp.fkyk; vd;gtUf;F mq;fd;tho cjtpahsuhf gzpapwf;fk;
bra;J> mq;fd;tho cjtpahshpd; Xa;t[ bgWk; tajhd 58 ,d; go
30.06.2016 md;W Xa;t[ bgw mDkjp tHq;f khtl;l Ml;rpah;
K:yk; eltof;if vLf;fyhk; bjspt[iu tHq;fg;gLfpwJ.
nkYk;> nkw;fhZk; tptug;go Xa;t[ Miz
mDkjpf;fg;gl;lhy; fPH;f;fhZk; tptug;go Xa;t{jpa gyd;fs;
tHq;fyhk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.
1.mq;fd;tho cjtpahsh; gjtpapy; gzp Xa;t[ bgWk; ehs;
30.06.2016 vd;gjhy; mg;nghija fhyj;jpy; eilKiwapy; ,Ue;j
murhiz 24> rK:feyk; (k) rj;Jzt[j;jpl;lj;Jiw> ehs;.
20.02.2016 ,d; go U:.25>000/- Xl;Lbkhj;j bjhif
tHq;fg;gl ntz;Lk;.
2.fU:h; khtl;l jpl;l mYtyhplk; Xa;t{jpak;
tHq;Ftjw;fhd mDkjp Miz bgw;W 01.07.2016 Kjy;
31.08.2017 tiu mg;nghija fhyj;jpy; eilKiwapy; ,Ue;j
murhiz 23> rK:feyk; (k) rj;Jzt[j;jpl;lj;Jiw> ehs;.
20.02.2016 ,d; go U:.1>500/-w;fhd epYitj; bjhif
tHq;fg;gl ntz;Lk;. fU:h; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; mth;fspd;
bray;Kiw Miz vz;.3376/m1/2015 ehs; 08.09.2017d;go
mq;fd;tho gzpahsuhf 30.06.2018 tiu gzpg[hpe;J Cjpak;
bgw;Ws;shh; vdnt> mf;fhyq;fSf;F Xa;t{jpak; tHq;f ,athJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
nkYk;> jw;nghJ eilKiwapYs;s murhizapd;go 01.07.2018
Kjy; ehsJ njjp tiu U:.2>000/-w;fhd epYitj; bjhif bgw;W
tHq;fg;gl ntz;Lk;. Xa;t{jpag;gl;oay; gzkhf;fg;gLtjw;F Kd;dh;
thH;t[Wjpr; rhd;W (Life Certificate) bgwg;gl ntz;Lk;.
tUq;fhyq;fspy; muR foj (epiy) vz;.65> rK:feyk; (k)
rj;Jzt[j;jpl;lj;Jiw> ehs;.12.10.2015 ,d; go Mz;Lf;bfhU
Kiw bgwg;gl ntz;Lk;.
5.It is not clear as to whether the above direction has been
implemented. We are of the view that the above recommendation of the first
respondent is reasonable, having taken into consideration that the respondent /
writ petitioner has entered into the service in the year 1982. Accordingly, the
Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the order of the learned Single Bench
quashing the order of termination dated 30.04.2015 is confirmed and the other
directions given by the learned Single Bench are set aside and the appellants are
directed to implement the recommendation made in the communication dated
04.08.2020 by reverting the respondent to the lower post and permitting her to
retire in the lower post on attaining the age of superannuation and pay all the
retiremental benefits and other emoluments, accordingly.
6.The above directions be complied with within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that
this judgment cannot be treated as a precedent and has been passed taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
08.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
msa/cp/ogy
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
msa/cp/ogy
JUDGEMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD) No.3432 of 2020
08.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
