Madras High Court
R.Dhanabalan vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd on 9 September, 2022
W.A.No.692 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.692 of 2013
R.Dhanabalan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
through Chairman cum Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
2.The Director (Planning and Projects),
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
3.J.L.Mehta,
Director (Planning and Projects),
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 07.01.2013 made in W.A.No.8187 of 2002.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Dhanabalan, Party-in-person
For Respondents : Mr.N.Nithianandam
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY,J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
07.01.2013 recorded on W.P.No.8187 of 2002. This appeal is by the
original writ petitioner.
2. At the outset it is noted that, the appellant has appeared in
person. He is a Senior Citizen. Had he continued in service he would
have attained the age of superannuation in the year 2013. We have
heard him for hours together in both the sessions today i.e. pre-lunch
session and post - lunch session with all the patience and the
sympathy. We have also, at one stage, offered to him that, he may be
provided legal aid if he desires, which he has declined. It is in this
background, we have heard the appellant in person.
3. The writ petitioner/appellant was an officer of the
respondent – Corporation, who was removed from service by way of
punishment order dated 14.02.2002, which was challenged by way of
writ petition being W.P.No.8187 of 2002 which was dismissed for want
of prosecution on 13.10.2003, which was restored at his request in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
the year 2011 and was taken up for hearing and decided by the order
under challenge dated 07.01.2013. The challenge to the removal order
dated 14.02.2002 is rejected by learned single Judge vide order dated
07.01.2013, which is questioned in this appeal and we have heard the
appellant in person giving him full leeway to substantiate how the
termination order dated 14.02.2002, according to him was
unsustainable and further how the order of learned single Judge dated
07.01.2013 is erroneous calling for any interference under Clause 15
of Letters Patent.
3.1. It is noted that, the appellant has extensively taken this
Court through the charges for which he was removed from service.
Those charges are as under:-
“1. That Shri R.Dhanabalan, Deputy Chief
Engineer (Mechl.,) is in the habit of
drafting and sending representations and
unwarranted letters containing false
allegations against superiors and others.
In this connection he was already issued
with a D.O. Letter No.P&A/CPM/DA/98/394
dated 06.04.98, wherein his attention was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
drawn to sub-rule (xxvi) of N.L.C.
Employees Conduct Rules informing him
that the above acts would constitute
misconduct punishable under N.L.C.
Employees control and Appeal Rules and
advising him to refrain from such acts.
In spite of the specific information
furnished to him the individual continued
to draft and send such letters.
2. That Shri R.Dhanabalan is refusing
to report on his day-to-day work to the
Chief Engineer, System Monitoring and
instead he prefers false complaints
against the Chief Engineer / System
Monitoring to various Authorities.
3. That Shri R.Dhanabalan, DCE/Mech.,
was personally called, counselled and
advised separately by the Director (P&P),
DGM/System Monitoring and CPM/P&A to
refrain from drafting and sending
representations and unwarranted letters
containing false allegations against
superiors and others. He was also advised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
to report on his day-to-day work to Chief
Engineer / System Monitoring and carry
our instructions given to him by his
superiors. In spite of the above
counselling and advise Shri R.Dhanabalan,
DCE did not amend himself instead
continued to indulge in the above acts.
4. That Shri R.Dhanabalan, DCE/Mechl.
had in his letter dated 04.05.1998
threatened the CPM that the DO letter
issued to him has to be withdrawn
otherwise he will inform the Central
Vigilance.”
3.2. He has taken this Court through all the charges and
proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and the satisfaction recorded by
the Disciplinary Authority line by line, to contend that, the findings
recorded by both - the Enquiry Officer so also the Disciplinary
Authority are perverse, there was no evidence against the appellant
and there was violation of principles of natural justice. The re-
appreciation of evidence, which according to him, is impermissible was
done by the learned single Judge is also the grievance voiced before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
us. It is submitted by the appellant that, the order of learned Single
Judge needs to be quashed and set aside and the removal order dated
14.02.2002 also needs to be quashed and set aside and the appellant
is entitled to all consequential benefits. He has also relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Digamber
Vaishnav & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal
Nos.428-430 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019).
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent
Corporation has submitted that, the order passed by learned Single
Judge is just and proper and the removal order was in due compliance
of all statutory provisions, so also legal requirements and therefore
rejection to the writ petition is just and proper and no interference be
made by this Court. It is noted that learned counsel for the
respondent – Corporation has also taken this Court through the
correspondence entered into by the appellant with the management
leading to the institution of the disciplinary proceedings which
ultimately culminated in removal order. It is submitted by him that
this appeal be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
5. Having heard the appellant in person and learned
Advocate for the respondent, we find as under.
5.1 The termination order dated 14th February, 2002 refers
to 10 documents, which are as under:-
“1. Charge Memo. No.P&A/CPM/DA/98-167
dated 10.6.98.
2. Enquiry Report/findings dated
06.02.2001.
3. Memo No.D(P&P)/T-365/SM/2001 dated
08.02.2001.
4. Shri R.Dhanabalan's objections
dated 17.02.2001.
5. Memo No.D(P&P)/T.631/SM/2001 dated
13.03.2001.
6. Shri R.Dhanabalan's letter dated
21.03.2001.
7. Lr. No.D(P&P)T.745/SM/2001 dated
24.03.2001.
8. Orders dated 23.11.2001 in
W.P.No.6571/2001 of the Hon'ble High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
9. Shri R.Dhanabalan's reply dated
10.12.2001 to the Provisional Show Cause
Notice dated 13.03.2001.
10. Orders dated 07.02.2002 of the
Hon'ble High Court, Madras in
W.A.No.2772/2001.”
5.2 We have been taken through those documents by the
appellant. On conjoint consideration of the charges levelled against
the appellant and the material noted above, the point for
consideration before the Court is whether rejection of the writ
petition by learned Single Judge can be termed to be erroneous,
which may call for any interference by us under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent.
6. On conjoint consideration of all the material we find that,
learned single Judge, in the facts of this case, can not be said to be
erroneous in any manner and neither any relief could be granted to
the writ petitioner at the relevant time, nor at this belated stage we
consider it either legally sustainable or feasible to grant any relief to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
the writ petitioner. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed.
The argument that, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were
perverse, or that this is the case of no evidence, or that there is
breach of principles of natural justice, according to us, are not
legally sustainable grounds, once the documents which runs into
hundreds of pages, which we have extensively gone into, are taken
note of. In totality, we find that, neither the writ petitioner is
entitled to any relief nor at this stage the same is feasible.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
(P.U.J.) (D.B.C.J.)
09.09.2022
Index:No
raa/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
To
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
2.The Director (Planning and Projects),
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
3.J.L.Mehta,
Director (Planning and Projects),
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Block-1,
Neyveli-607 801.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.692 of 2013
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
raa
W.A.No.692 of 2013
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
