Madras High Court
T.Mayee vs The Managing Director on 25 January, 2022
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD) No.4397 of 2020 and
WMP(MD) Nos.3692 & 3693 of 2020
T.Mayee Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
th
4 Floor, CMDA Tower -2,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Senior Regional Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
No.100, Anna Nagar,
Madurai – 20.
3.The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
Madurai North,
Madurai.
4.The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
Madurai South,
Madurai. Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call
for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the
respondent No.4 in Na.Ka.No.15/2017/A dated 23.01.2020 and
consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post
of salesman in TASMAC Shop at No.5512 or any other shop at Madurai
District with consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Thirumurugan
For Respondents :Mr.H.Arumugam
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the order passed by the
fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.15/2017/A dated 23.01.2020. By the
order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner's request for
reinstatement was rejected.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was working as salesman in TASMAC Shop No.5512
from the year 2003. He was implicated in the criminal case registered in
Crime No.17 of 2007, on the file of the Vickramangalam Police station.
He was also arrested in that case. Subsequently, he was convicted in the
criminal case, before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
19.07.2012. Accordingly, he was remanded to Prison. The said period
was considered as un-authorised absent and the petitioner was placed
under suspension by order dated 19.07.2012. As against the order of
conviction, appeal was filed before this Court in Crl.A.No.157 of 2012
and the same was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
following terms:-
“12. Considering all the above fact, we are of the
view that there are lot of doubts in the case of the
prosecution, which have not been obviated by the
prosecution at all. The accused are, therefore,
entitled for the benefit arising out of such doubts. In
such view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution
has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable
doubts against the accused and therefore, they are
entitled for acquittal.
13.In the result, these appeals are allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court I
S.C.No.287 of 2010 against all the
appellants/accused is set aside and the are acquitted.
The bail bond, if any, executed by them shall stand
terminated. The fine amount, if any, paid by them
shall be ordered to be refunded.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
3.Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to reinstate him in the
post of Salesman in the TASMAC Shop and the same was rejected by the
order impugned in this writ petition. Hence, this petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied
upon the proceedings of the District Collector in Na.Ka.No.
28769 /2019/rcjp-1 dated, 12.09.2019 that the co-accused, namely, one
Panchavarnam was also similarly convicted by the trial Court in Crime
No.17 of 2017 and subsequently reinstated, by the orders of the District
Collector, dated 12.09.2019, based on the observations made by this
Court in Crl.A.156 and 157 of 2012, dated 14.10.2015. The petitioner is
also seeking the same benefits, as that of the relief granted to the said
Panchavarnam. The learned counsel claims that since the petitioner was
arrested pursuant to the conviction imposed by the trial Court, he could
not attend the office during the relevant point of time.
5.Per contra, Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the TASMAC shop submits that the petitioner was engaged
by the respondent on contract basis, temporarily. The petitioner cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
claim as a matter of right to reinstate him in the service as per the
existing Rules. Accordingly, this petitioner was placed under suspension,
for his un-authorised absent for more than 30 days. The petitioner was
suspended in the year 2012 and he made request during 2015 and the
same was rejected. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment
of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Paper Corporation Vs
Purnendu Chakrobarty and others, reported in 1996 11 Supreme Court
Cases 404, wherein, it was held as follows:-
15.....For our case the relevant sub clause is (vi) (E)
which says that proceeding on leave without prior
sanction and remaining unauthorisedly absent for
more than 8 consecutive days; and/or overstaying his
sanctioned leave beyong the period originally granted
or subsequently extended for more than 8 consecutive
days would result in loss of lien of the appointment of
the employee. In this case, we have seen that the first
respondent had proceeded onleave without prior
sanction and remained unauthorizedly absent for more
than six months consecutively which obliged the
appellant Corporation to issue communication to the
first respondent calling upon him to explain.
Unfortunately, the first respondent, for reasons best
known to him, has not availed himself of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
opportunity as seen earlier but replied in a half-
hearted way which resulted in the impugned order.
Therefore, under the circumstances, it cannot be siad
that the principles of natural justice have not been
complied with or the circumstances require any
enquiry as contemplated under Rule 25. In the case
cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent,
this Court has held
“that the law must, therefore, be now taken to be
well settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a
person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article
14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the
anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a
statute on statutory rule or rules or orders affecting
the civil rights or result in civil consequences would
have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it
must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a
quasi-judicial function and an administrative function
for the purpose of principle of natural justice. The aim
of both administrative inquiry as well as the quasi-
judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a
rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice to
put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is
difficult to see why it should be applicable only to
quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
inquiry. It must logically apply to both”
16.On a consideration of the entire facts, we are of the
view that the test laid down by this Court, as extracted
above, has been satisfied by the appellant-
Corporation and therefore when viewed form the poit
of Rule 23 (vi) (E), there was no good reason for the
High Court to interfere with the impugned order of the
appellant-Corporation, dated 05.01.1989.”
6.The learned Standing Counsel has also relied on the
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.Sakthivel Vs The
District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
reported in 2015 0 Supreme (Mad) 622, wherein, it was held as
follows:-
3.On consideration, we find that the appointment of
the writ petitioner/appellant was purely temporary on
contract basis. The writ petitioner left the job without
any information or permission in February, 2007.
Thereafter, he made a representation on 18.07.201. It
is well settled that the Court should refrain from
passing an order to consider the representation if ther
is no merit in the representation as some times the
direction to consider the representation is taken as a
positive direction to grant the relief. We have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
considered the representation of the writ petitioner. We
do not find any merit as the writ petitioner has not
acquired any right to continue or to rejoin the post as
the writ petitioner was appointed temporarily on
contract basis in the month of January, 2004 and the
petitioner abandoned the job in February, 2007. Thus,
the impugned order passed by the writ Court is
flawless, warranting no interference.”
7.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
8.The petitioner, who was working as Salesman in
TASMAC Shop No.5512, was convicted by the trial Court in the year
2012, for his involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner preferred an
appeal before this Court in Crl.A.157 of 2012 and the same was allowed
by this Court. The main contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the
co-accused in the criminal case was reinstated into service by the District
Collector, Madurai by his proceedings dated 12.09.2019. In reply, the
learned Standing Counsel submits that the order of the District Collector,
instating the co-accused, who is an permanent employee, cannot be taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
as a ground for considering the case of the petitioner, who is working on
temporarily and on contractual basis. The fact remains that the petitioner
has made request for reinstatement after three years. The Honourable
Supreme Court has also held that the person, who was appointed
temporarily on contract basis has not acquired any right to continue or to
rejoin the post.
9.In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined
to allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order. However, it is
open to the petitioner to make a mercy petition to the respondent
Corporation and it is open to the respondent to consider the same.
10. With the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
25.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
th
4 Floor, CMDA Tower -2,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Senior Regional Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
No.100, Anna Nagar,
Madurai – 20.
3.The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
Madurai North,
Madurai.
4.The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
Madurai South,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI, J
vrn
Order made in
W.P(MD) No.4397 of 2020 and
WMP(MD) Nos.3692 & 3693 of 2020
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
