Madras High Court
The General Manager (Drilling) vs R. Senthilkumar (Died) on 8 April, 2022
W.A.No.267 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 8/4/2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice N.MALA
Writ Appeal No.267 of 2015
1. The General Manager (Drilling)
Oil and National Gas Corporation Ltd
Cauvery Project
Neravy
Karaikkal.
2. The Group General Manager
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
Cauvery Project
Neravy
Karaikkal.
3. The Deputy General Manager
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
Cauvery Project
Neravy
Karaikkal. ... Appellants
Vs
R. Senthilkumar (died)
2. Sathya Priya
3. S.Sudanshanth
4. S. Dilip ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.A.No.267 of 2015
(R.R.2 to 4 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased
first respondent, viz., (R.Senthilkumar) vide, Court,
dated 24/2/2022, made in C.M.P.No.2944 of 2022
in W.A.No.267 of 2015 (SVNJ & MSQJ).
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 19/9/2014, made in W.P.No.42597 of 2002.
For Appellants ... Mr.Singaravelan
for M/s. Mohamed Fayaz
For Respondents ... Mr.S.Sadasharam
-----
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J
AND
N.MALA,J
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Karaikkal, challenging the order of the
learned Single Judge in allowing W.P.No.42597 of 2002, dated 19/9/2014,
wherein, this Court has held that there is no evidence to establish the
charges of enquiry and that the Enquiry Officer has verified the record on
his own and came to the conclusion that charges are proved without
anybody letting in evidence or production of documents. When no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
documents have furnished, the Enquiry Officer, who is expected to act
independently, ought not to have gone into perusing the records of the
delinquent employee and found him guilty of the charges.
2. It is no doubt true that when an employee is faced with charges,
the principles of natural justice have to be complied with and it is
mandatory on the part of the employer to establish the charges in the
domestic enquiry. From the Enquiry report of the enquiry Officer, it
appears that no evidence was let in to establish the charges. However, the
petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority,
questioning the action of the disciplinary authority in imposing the
punishment, more so, when there are violations of the principles of natural
justice committed by the Enquiry Officer.
3. Though it has been contended by the writ petitioner that when
there is a violation of principles of natural justice, more so, the conduct of
disciplinary rules have been violated, the appellate authority ought to have
interfered with the order of the disciplinary authority, remitted the matter to
the Enquiry Officer and conducted enquiry afresh. Without being so, the
appellate authority has imposed the punishment which needs to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
The writ petitioner would further contend that the writ petitioner was
mentally ill and that was the reason he was not in a position to attend the
enquiry for which several telegrams and letters have been issued.
4. The appellants, who are the respondents before the writ Court
would contend that the petitioner/respondent was a habitual absentee and
that from 1998 onwards, he was never reported to work. The charge sheet
was issued. Enquiry Officer was appointed and there was no response from
the employee. Perusing the file produced before the Enquiry Officer, the
Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges are proved after
setting the employee ex parte. That apart, a request has been considered by
the appellate authority and the appellate authority has gone into the files
and asked the employee Senthil Kumar, to appear for personal hearing on
12/8/2002. Though no documents have been produced as could be seen
from the enquiry proceedings and that on account of absence before the
Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the
charges have been proved. Based on the records, the appellate authority
gave an opportunity to the writ petitioner to put forth his submissions and in
the personal hearing, he has admitted the guilt before the appellate authority
and the relevant paragraph Nos.4 and 5.2 are extracted below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
“4. At the outset, the undersigned enquired
from Shri.Senthilkumar about his prolonged
absence from duty from 27/11/1998 to 31/8/2000
(i.e., 642 days) without proper intimation/leave
application to the department concerned. Shri
Senthil Kumar admitted of his remaining absent
from duty from 27/11/1998 without proper
intimation whatsoever. On the one hand, he has
informed that because of his mental depression he
was not aware what was happening around him
during the above period and on the other hand, he
was sending telegrams (i) dated 19/1/1999
requesting for leave upto 25/1/1999 on medical
grounds (ii). dated 27/1/1999 requesting for
extention of leave upto 29/1/1999 (iii). dated
2/2/1999 requesting extention of leave for two
days (iv) dated 9/2/1999 requesting extension of
leave for three days (v). On 17/2/1999 requesting
extention of leave for two days for eye operation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
(vi) dated 5/5/1999 requesting extention of leave
for three days. He was acknowledging all the
communications sent by ONGC, which proves that
he was mentally sound.
5.2. As regards para 3.2 above, he had
applied for two days leave on 25/11/1998 and a
telegram was sent on 27/11/1998 requesting to
extend leave for a week. Thereafter, neither he had
sent any proper intimation/application nor did he
join duty. Since he was absenting from duty
unauthorisedly, a telegram dated 18/1/1999, was
sent to him asking him to report for duty
immediately failing which action would be taken
against him. On receipt of this office telegram
dated 18/1/999, he sent a telegram on 19/1/1999,
intimating that he was under treatment and hence
requested leave upto 25/1/1999. Thereafter, he had
sent telegrams dated 27/1/1999, requesting
extension of leave upton 29/1/1999, by the did not
turn up for duty and continued to remain absent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
Again, on 2/2/1999, 9/2/1999, 17/2/1999 and
5/5/1999 telegrams were sent requesting for
extension of leave for 2/3 days. Thereafter, he
stopped sending telegrams/leave application nor
did he join duty and continued to remain absent
unauthorisedly. The period for which he had been
requesting for leave did not cover his entire period
of absence. Hence, his contention that he was
under the bonafide impression that the leave had
been sanctioned and extended is incorrect and not
justifiable.”
5. Detailed enquiry is mandatory, provided if the charges are not
admitted. If the charges are admitted, there is no need for further enquiry.
There is no need for time consuming process, when the employee is going
to admit his guilt either before the Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority
or before the appellate authority. In this case, absence for several years
have been admitted and the reason is that the writ petitioner was suffering
from mental illness. Firstly, the employee who is alleged to be suffering
from mental illness in a concern cannot be said to be a distress only to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
employee but equally to the employer as well. That apart the absence for a
long period of time is not in dispute which has been admitted. Though on
technicalities it appears that the writ petitioner has a case, but on the ground
of admission of guilt by the delinquent employee, no relief could be granted
to the writ petitioner. During the pendency of the proceeding, the writ
petitioner passed away and legal heirs have been brought on record,
pursuant to the order, dated 24/2/2022, made in C.M.P.No.2944 of 2022 in
W.A.No.267 of 2015. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the
learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with.
6. In the result, the instant writ appeal is allowed. For the actual
services rendered by the employee, if any terminal benefits was due that
has got to be paid, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs.
(S.V.N.,J) (N.M.,J)
th
8 April 2022
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes
mvs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.267 of 2015
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J
and
N.MALA,J
mvs.
Writ Appeal No.267 of 2015
8/4/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
