Madras High Court
Board Of Directors vs S.Sachithanantham on 18 November, 2021
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 18.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
1.Board of Directors
rep by Chairperson,
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited (TIIC),
No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Managing Director,
TIIC Limited,
No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. ... Appellants
Vs.
S.Sachithanantham ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 31.08.2012 made in W.P.No.34907 of 2002.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Magesh
For Respondent : Mr.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.R.Sunil Kumar
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, ACJ.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.34907 of 2002, the
respondents in the Writ Petition have filed the above Writ Appeal.
2.The respondent herein filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st appellant dated
15.02.2002 confirming the order of the 2nd appellant dated 29.08.2000
and to quash the same and direct the appellants to reinstate him as Law
Officer in the appellant – Organization with backwages.
3.It is the case of the respondent/Writ Petitioner that he was
appointed in the 2nd appellant Organization as Law Officer on 04.11.1989
at Hosur Branch. Subsequently, he was transferred from Hosur Branch to
Cuddalore Branch on 14.05.1993. As a Law Officer, his responsibility
was to verify the documents of title given by the potential borrowers, to
examine the opinions given by the panel Advocates and to receive the
relevant documents for custody as a measure of security for the loans
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
advanced by the Corporation. The respondent was issued with a Charge
Memo dated 11.12.1997 by the 2nd appellant stating that he has exposed
the Corporation to possible loss to the extent of Rs.4,83,20,418.54 since
the securities taken by way of equitable mortgage cannot be enforced and
thereby violated the Service Rules of the Corporation. The
respondent/Writ Petitioner had submitted his explanation to the said
Charge Memo on 15.04.1998. However, the appellants found the
explanation to be not satisfactory. The 2nd appellant issued another
Charge Memo dated 09.06.1998 and the respondent/Writ Petitioner has
also given his explanation on 31.08.1998 for the 2nd Charge Memo. A
departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found all
the charges proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the
respondent/Writ Petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the
respondent filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, taking into
consideration the case of both sides, disposed of the Writ Petition by
converting the order of dismissal as one of resignation and further
clarified that the respondent/Writ Petitioner shall not be entitled to get
any monetary benefits. The conversion of the order of dismissal to
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
resignation was done by the learned Single Judge based on the
submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/Writ
Petitioner to the effect that the respondent is not willing to join the
service of the appellant - Corporation for the reason that he wants to
practice as a responsible lawyer without any stigma of dismissal from
service.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Corporation
submitted that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is
sustained, many employees would seek for such conversion.
5.The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants
can be answered by protecting the appellants by restricting the
implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge only in
respect of the respondent/Writ Petitioner. In other aspects, we do not find
any ground to interfere with the observations made by the learned Single
Judge. In view of the same, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, we make it clear
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
that the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall not be cited as a
precedent in any matter. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., ACJ.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
va 18.11.2021
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
M.DURAISWAMY, ACJ.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
va
W.A.No.2805 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
18.11.2021
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
