Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs I.Imthiyas Mohammed on 9 June, 2022
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By it Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering),
Nandanam, Chennai – 35. .. Appellants
Vs
I.Imthiyas Mohammed .. Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 21.08.2020 made in W.P.No.10069 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.Abishek Murthy
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.T.Sellapandian
JUDGMENT
(Made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
21.08.2020 recorded on W.P.No. 10069 of 2013. This appeal is by the
respondent / State Authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
2. Learned Government Advocate has vehemently submitted
that, interference in the punishment order by learned Single Judge was
unjustified since, on the basis of the material on record the
Government as the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment and
the State was well within its right to do so. It is submitted that the
interference by learned Single Judge on the ground of proportionality
was unwarranted in the facts of this case. Reliance is also placed on
the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shyam Lal v
The State of U.P and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 369 to contend
that the impugned order is unsustainable. It is submitted that this
appeal be entertained.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent / original writ
petitioner has supported the order of learned Single Judge. Attention
of the Court is also invited to the documents placed on record right
from the charge memo to the final punishment order. It is submitted
that, learned Single Judge has not committed any error and therefore
no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this appeal
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record this Court finds as
under:-
4.1 The writ petitioner had joined the services on 20.08.1984.
He was working as Assistant Engineer.
4.2 There was alleged misconduct on his part of dereliction of
duty, since one Measurement Book No. 1361 was not found to be on
record. This happened in the year 2001. It is a matter of record that,
the said measurement book, in any case was received by the State
Authorities and the inspection of the work as mentioned in the said
measurement book was also carried and no irregularity is found
therein.
4.3 The writ petitioner was issued charge memo on
23.04.2004 for the above so called dereliction. He denied the charges.
Departmental enquiry was conducted on 27.12.2004. The writ
petitioner did not hear anything for years. On 31.08.2008 second show
cause notice was given to the writ petitioner intimating him that
charge against him is treated to have been proved. He replied to it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
This was again kept pending for years.
4.4 The writ petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation
on 30.09.2012. Two days before his retirement, punishment order was
passed on 28.09.2012 ordering compulsory retirement. It is this order,
which is set aside by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has
on the basis of the material on record arrived at the conclusion that
the punishment order was unsustainable on more than one ground.
5. We have considered the reasons recorded by learned
Single Judge. We find that in the gross facts noted above, the setting
aside of the punishment order by learned Single Judge can not be said
to be an error which may call for any interference. This appeal
therefore needs to be dismissed. While dismissing this appeal, we note
that on independent of appreciation of material on record we have also
arrived at that conclusion that the punishment order was
unsustainable. It was for more than one reason. Firstly that the charge
against the writ petitioner was about missing of measurement book
which was already received by the Department and the work
mentioned therein was also independently audited and there was no
irregularity or atleast there is nothing on record to show that there was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
any irregularity. Therefore on merits nothing was required to be done.
In any case the missing measurement book was subsequently found. If
any officer was to be punished, keeping that issue pending for about
12 years and passing an order of compulsory retirement two days prior
to superannuation retirement itself speaks a lot about its
unsustainability. We find that, though learned Single Judge has not
interfered in the impugned order on the ground of malafide exercise of
power, over and above what is noted by learned Single Judge we find
that, at least there was malice in law. In totality we find that, this
appeal needs to be dismissed. No interference is required in the order
of learned Single Judge.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs. C.M.P.No.10233 of 2021 would not survive.
(P.U., J) (V.B.S., J)
09.06.2022
Index:No
ssm/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ssm
W.A.No.1635 of 2021
09.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
