Madras High Court
Varadhan vs The Commissioner on 10 January, 2022
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.5233 of 2021
Varadhan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
K.Abisegapuram Division,
Corporation of Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice
Na.Ka.No.C3 (Centre)/5875/2003, dated 17.02.2021 issued by
the first respondent and quash the same and consequently
direct the first respondent herein to regularise the
petitioner since the petitioner has been in the work for
the statutory period, ie., for 480 days, i.e., with effect
from 25.10.1999 with all consequential, pensionary benefits.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner, who is working in the second respondent
Corporation has filed this writ petition challenging the
show cause notice issued by the first respondent.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in the respondent
Corporation on compassionate ground 22 years ago on
25.10.1999, as his father, who was working in the second
respondent Corporation died on 22.02.1999, while he was in
service. The petitioner has been working for all these
years in the Corporation. While so, nearly after two
decades after the appointment, the impugned show cause
notice has been issued alleging that the petitioner at the
time of submitting application for compassionate
appointment, suppressed the fact of her father's first wife
is also working in the respondent Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner was appointed only after doing
field verification by the respondent Corporation.
Further, the petitioner is the son of the deceased's second
wife and they are residing separately. Further, the first
wife has also given no objection for providing appointment
to the petitioner and therefore, this fact was known to the
second respondent even at the time of appointing the
petitioner. The learned Counsel has also relied on the
order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.6631 of 2020, dated
29.07.2020, wherein this Court has gone to the extent of
quashing the removal order of similarly placed person,
working in the respondent Corporation.
4.There is no representation for the respondent
Corporation. However, this Court proceeds with the
materials available on record and disposes of the writ
petition.
5.The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in the
respondent Corporation on compassionate grounds on
25.10.1999, since his father died on 22.02.1999, while he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
was in service and the petitioner has all along been
working in the Corporation. Now, nearly after a very long
period of twenty years, the respondent Corporation has
issued the impugned show cause notice on the ground that
the petitioner at the time of submitting application
seeking compassionate appointment, suppressed the fact of
her father's first wife's employment in the respondent
Corporation.
6.It is to be noted that ten other similarly placed
persons were removed from service based on the same set of
charges that one way or other they have suppressed certain
material facts and therefore, they were removed from
service. This Court in W.P(MD)No.6631 of 2020, has quashed
the said removal order on the following terms:
“20.Moreover, while considering the
application of the petitioner definitely the
respondent corporation could have thoroughly
investigated the circumstances of the family of
the petitioner and accordingly compassionate
appointment had been given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
21. Moreover, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a decision of a
Division Bench of this Court reported in (2011)
3 MLJ 673 in the matter of Joint Director of
School Education and others vs. C.Lesley
Jayaseelan, where the learned counsel relied
upon paragraph 13, which reads thus:-
“ 13. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the termination of
service after a lapse of 22 years,
would certainly affect the livelihood
of his entire family at this length
of time. Moreover, as observed by the
learned single Judge, the appointment
given to the respondent is not
against any statutory regulations and
moreover, the removal is not based on
any misconduct. Therefore, we are of
the considered view that the
respondent, having been allowed to
continue for over 22 years in
Government service, will not be
removed from service on the ground
that he got employment on furnishing
false information. Therefore, we do
not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the learned single Judge
and under such circumstances, the
writ appeal is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the writ
appeal fails and is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Map's
closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
22. In that case also, the Division Bench
has shown its indulgence that, removal of the
employee in that case was not based on any
misconduct, since the employee having been
allowed to continue for over 22 years in
Government service, shall not be removed from
service on the ground that he got an
employment on furnishing false information.
Here also in this case, the petitioner was
permitted to continue in service for 23 years
and at the fag end, now disciplinary action has
been taken and has been removed from service
mainly on the ground that at the time of making
an application, he had suppressed that his
father had already worked and retired from
service.
23. I feel that the said logic and the
principle enunciated by the Division Bench of
this Court in the above cited judgment can very
well be applied to the facts and circumstances
of this case. More over, the belated decision
taken now by the respondent corporation against
the petitioner cannot be accepted as merely
because, some other similarly placed persons
have approached this Court and stalled the
proceedings, such a delayed action cannot be
justified by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
24. In this context, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly
submitted that, except this petitioner, 9
others have approached this Court. Insofar as
the petitioner, no Court proceedings was
pending and therefore, there was no impediment
for the respondent corporation to complete the
disciplinary proceedings as early as possible
and for all these years the respondent
corporation should not have waited to get the
verdict in other cases. If that fair submission
of the respondent is taken into account, the
long delay in concluding the proceedings on the
part of the respondent against the petitioner
cannot be attributable because of the reason on
the side of the petitioner. Since the
petitioner was in no way instrumental for the
huge delay on the part of the respondent to
complete the proceedings, this Court feels
that, at the end of 23 years, if such a major
punishment of removal from service is inflicted
against the petitioner, as he was working as a
sweeper, the whole family will be put again in
penurious and indigent circumstances.
Therefore, the very purpose of extending the
benefit by way of compassionate appointment to
the petitioner's family would get defeated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
25. For all these reasons, I am of the
considered view that the impugned order cannot
be sustained, accordingly, it is liable to be
quashed. In the result, the impugned order is
quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be reinstated into service
forthwith, with all service benefits. No
costs.”
7.Here also the petitioner is working for several years
and the charge is not on any misconduct, but on false
information. The above decision is squarely applicable to
the case on hand. This writ petition is allowed in the
light of the above ratio laid down by this Court and the
impugned charge memo is hereby quashed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.
10.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
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 Commissioner,
Corporation of Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
K.Abisegapuram Division,
Corporation of Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.P(MD)No.6810 of 2021
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
