Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs C. Jeganathan on 6 September, 2021
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 1726 of 2021
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home (Transport) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. Commissioner of Transport,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5. ..Appellants
Vs.
C. Jeganathan ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed in
W.P. No. 23414 of 2008.
For Appellants :: Mr.K. Tippu Sulthan,
Govt. Advocate
For Respondent :: Mr.Vediappan for
M/s.C.S. Associates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1\6
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated
19.11.2018 passed in W.P. No. 23414 of 2008.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the
order of the 1st appellant in G.O.(D) No. 773, Home (Transport) Deprtment
dated 01.07.2008, by which the order of the 2nd appellant vide his
proceedings dated 15.12.2006, dismissing the 1st respondent from service was
confirmed.
3. Based on a surprise check conducted by Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Officials, Coimbatore at Transport Department check post, K.G.
Chavadi, Coimbatore District and the report of the Vigilance squad, the 2nd
appellant framed six charges against the 1st respondent, Motor Vehicle
Inspector (Non-Technical) and two others, who were on duty at the relevant
point of time. A preliminary enquiry was ordered and based on the same,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1st respondent and others.
On conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the 1st respondent was found guilty
of charge Nos. 2 and 4 and was imposed with the punishment of dismissal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2\6
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
from service. The dismissal order was challenged by the 1st respondent by
way of an appeal petition before the 1st appellant. However, the appeal was
dismissed confirming the order of the 2nd appellant.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and
circumstances and the submissions made on either side, while holding that
the finding of the disciplinary authority does not satisfy the test of balance
of probability and imposition of punishment cannot be only with a view to
deter others from committing similar offences with which a delinquent was
charged without establishing the charge on the acid test of prepondernace
of probability of the case, passed the following order, the operative portion of
which reads thus:
"35. I am of the view that the facts of the case ends of justice
would be met, if the case is remanded back to the 2 nd respondent to re-
examine the case afresh by getting proper explanation not only from the
staff who were present at the time of the visit by the officials of the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department at the Check Post on
21.12.2002 but also from other staffs of the rest of three teams to
ascertain the modus adopted by the Staff at Check Post.
36. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed with consequential
relief together with interest at the applicable rates as was in force on the
date of dismissal of the petitioner,within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3\6
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
Department.
5. Two grounds have been raised in the writ appeal i.e, firstly, the
acceptance of illegal gratification was proved and only for the proven
charges, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed and secondly,
according to the learned Government Advocate, even assuming for the sake
of argument, that the learned Single Judge was right in remanding the matter,
allowing of the writ petition with consequential relief together with interest at
the applicable rates as was in force on the date of dismissal of the writ
petitioner, as could be seen from paragraph No.36, may not be correct as this
Court's power under Article 226 to interfere with the departmental
proceedings is restricted unless it is found to be in violation of principles of
natural justice or tainted with mala fides. Hence, the learned Government
Advocate seeks to set aside the order under challenge.
6. The question that arose for consideration before the learned
Single Judge, with regard to the proven charges, was whether it was probable
that a sum of Rs.50,650/- recovered from the record room by the official from
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department on 21.12.2002 would have been
received or collected as bribe by the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4\6
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
not when the check post was under his control. As there were different
probabilities and that none of the probabilities had been looked into for the
purpose of arriving at preponderance of probabilties and writ petitioner/1st
respondent herein was held guilty, this Court interfered and agreed with the
contention of the writ petitioner and remanded the matter to be re-examined
afresh by getting proper explanation not only from the staff, who were present
at the time of the visit by the officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Department at the Check Post on 21.12.2002 but also from other staff of the
rest of three teams to ascertain the modus adopted by the Staff at Check Post,
as could be seen from paragraph No.35, extracted supra.
7. However, when a matter is remanded, the clock is set back and
the authority will have to ascertain whether the charges are established or not
and paragraph Nos. 35 & 36 of the order under challenge run counter to each
other. Though we find that the argument of the learned Government
Advocate with regard to the first issue is not satisfactory as the learned Single
Judge was right in remanding the matter to do the acid test of
preponderance of probabilities, granting consequential relief while
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5\6
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
remanding the matter may not be correct. Hence, we interfere with paragraph
No.36 of the impugned order alone and hold that the order of the learned
Single Judge in remanding the matter to the 2nd appellant to re-examine the
case afresh along with other directions in paragraph No.35 is sustained with a
further direction to the authority to decide the matter as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
this order in this writ appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is
closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 06.09.2021
W.A. No. 434 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6\6
