Madras High Court
L.T.Thomas vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies on 10 August, 2022
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
L.T.Thomas ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies
Distribution Corporation,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
No.12, Thambusamy Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ..Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondent in Na.Ka.No.AD4/73921/2013 dated 04.09.2014 and quash the
same as illegal, unlawful besides unsustainable in law and consequently direct
the respondent to provide all such service and monetary benefits to the
petitioner.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bhaskaran
For M/s.T.S.Rajamohan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Kanikkai Nathan
[For Tamil Nadu Civil
Supplies Corporation]
ORDER
The order dated 04.09.2014 issued by the respondent, rejecting the
Review Petition filed by the petitioner is sought to be quashed in the present
writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the office of
the respondent. The Criminal Case was registered against him and the said
Criminal Case ended with an order of conviction and the petitioner was
imposed with the fine of Rs.250/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal in
C.A.No.104 of 2012 and the appeal was dismissed. However, the petitioner
was granted the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act and
accordingly, he was released by admonition. The Appellate Court formed an
opinion that the Lower Court correctly found that the accused is guilty under
Sections 342 & 323 IPC and on that ground, the appeal was dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner
mainly contended that the petitioner was released under Section 3 of
Probation of Offenders Act by admonition and the fine amount was refunded
to the writ petitioner and therefore, he should be exonerated from the
departmental disciplinary proceedings.
4. The departmental disciplinary proceedings and the Criminal Case
are distinct and different. Even an order of acquittal in a Criminal Case is not
a ground to grant exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
To convict a person under the Criminal Court of Law, high standard of proof
is required. However, no such strict proof is required to punish an employee
under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Preponderance of probabilities are
enough to punish an employee under the Conduct Rules. Therefore, the
procedures to be adopted in a Criminal Case before the competent Criminal
Court of law cannot be compared with the procedures to be followed in a
departmental disciplinary proceedings under the Conduct Rules.
5. In the present case, the departmental disciplinary proceedings are
initiated independently against the writ petitioner under the relevant rules. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
charge memorandum was issued and the petitioner was afforded with an
opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry officer was appointed, who in
turn, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, holding that the charge
against the writ petitioner was held proved. The enquiry report was accepted
by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn, imposed the punishment of
stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
Thus, the departmental disciplinary proceedings were conducted
independently by following the rules and the procedures contemplated. There
is no irregularity in following the procedures and the opportunity as
contemplated was afforded to the writ petitioner to defend his case. Even
otherwise, the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case and the Criminal
appeal filed by him was dismissed. Mere release of the writ petitioner under
the Probation of Offenders Act would not be a ground to exonerate the writ
petitioner from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the ground
raised by the writ petitioner based on the judgment of the Criminal appeal is
untenable and this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the
departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated and the punishment of
stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect imposed on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
writ petitioner.
6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.08.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies
Distribution Corporation,
No.12, Thambusamy Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
W.P.No.31072 of 2014
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
