Madras High Court
The Commisssioner vs C.Balaji Babu on 25 October, 2021
W.A.1156 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.1156 of 2020
The Commisssioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building, Chennai. ... Appellant/1st Respondent
-vs-
1. C.Balaji Babu ... Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents/2nd Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order
dated 24.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.11404 of 2012 by this Hon'ble Court by allowing
this Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Silambanan, Addl. Advocate General
For Mr.R.Gopinath
For R1 : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran for Caveator
*****
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.,
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Appellant for setting aside the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 24.02.2020 made in W.P.No.11404 of 2012, in
and by which, the punishment of removal from service has been modified into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.1156 of 2020
one of withholding of increment without cumulative effect for three years.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to by their original
nomenclature found in the Writ Petition as 'the Writ Petitioner' and 'Appellant/1st
Respondents'.
3. It was the case of the Writ Petitioner that he was removed from service
on the ground that while he was working as Assistant, he was issued with a charge
memo dated 23.07.2007 for misappropriation of amount in respect of booking of a
Kalyana Mandabam. According to the Writ Petitioner, two other persons, who were
charged with the similar misconduct, were let off by way of simple imposition of
punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect,
whereas a punishment of removal from service was imposed on the Writ Petitioner.
3.1. It was further case of the Writ Petitioner that an outsider has been
appointed as an Enquiry Officer, which is contrary to the Rules applicable to the
Corporation and that no one was examined to establish the charges. Accepting the
submission of the Writ Petitioner with regard to discrimination, learned Single
Judge has allowed the Writ Petition, which does not warrant any interference by
this Court.
4. The Appellant herein has contended that the Writ Petitioner, having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.1156 of 2020
accepted his guilt before the Vigilance and remitted the misappropriated amount,
cannot now take a different stand. Since a serious misconduct has been committed
and there was a temporary misappropriation of the amount, he cannot be left off
with a minor punishment. It is also contended that even if it is accepted that the
enquiry had not been conducted in a fair manner, learned Single Judge, instead of
conversion of punishment, ought to have remanded the matter to the Authority for
any lesser punishment.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents available on record.
6. It is seen that the Writ Petitioner joined the services of the Appellant /
Corporation as Office Assistant and while he was an Assistant on promotion, he was
issued with a Charge Memo dated 23.07.2007. Admittedly, no enquiry has been
conducted, as, on the basis of the charges, he was straightaway removed from
service and the charges have not been established in the enquiry. The documents
relied upon by the Appellant herein cannot be looked into at this stage, as the
same has got to be examined in the enquiry. Though the charges are indeed serious
in nature, the punishment of removal from service has been imposed without
conducting a proper enquiry and the same has been interfered with by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.1156 of 2020
Single Judge, by reducing the punishment. Of course, learned Single Judge has
rightly observed in the order that enquiry has not been conducted properly and
that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Once the enquiry is bad,
the matter will have to be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh
consideration, who, in turn, after complying with all the requirements and after
getting a report from the Enquiry Officer, can, if required, impose a punishment
based on the evidence that may be available. While agreeing with the observation
made by the learned Single Judge that there was no enquiry, which is bad in the
eye of law, we are of the view that the matter is liable to be remitted to the
Disciplinary Authority to consider afresh.
7. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh
enquiry and the enquiry shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis without
adjourning the matter beyond five working days at any point of time and
concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. It is made clear that in this case we have not decided whether the very
same punishment, as has been given to two other employees similarly situated has
to be given to the Writ Petitioner or not, as it is for the Disciplinary Authority to
decide based on the charges to be established in the enquiry. It is further made
clear that the Writ Petitioner should be either reinstated in service before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.1156 of 2020
proceeding with the enquiry (as there can be no enquiry by the employer against
an employee, who is not in service) or be placed under suspension and proceed
against him further. In case of suspension, the Writ Petitioner should be paid
subsistence allowance, as, otherwise, it would vitiate the enquiry proceedings and
a different Enquiry Officer shall be appointed within the Organization. The
Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer, who is going to be appointed by the
Disciplinary Authority shall not be influenced by any of the observations made
either by the learned Single Judge or by this Bench.
8. This Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.V.N.J.,] [R.V.J.,]
25.10.2021
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.1156 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ar
W.A.1156 of 2020
25.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
