Madras High Court
The Director vs A.Megrunnisa on 12 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2064 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.15637 of 2022
1.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
2.The District Collector,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur – 613 010. ..Appellants
Vs
A.Megrunnisa ..Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 21.04.2022 made in W.P.No.15837 of 2015.
For Appellants .. Mr.S.Silambanan,
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Ms.E.Renganayaki,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondent .. Mr.K.Rajkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 21.04.2022
recorded on W.P. No.15837 of 2015. This appeal is by the State
authorities – respondents in the writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was dismissed from service vide order
dated 22.08.2014 for the misconduct alleged to have been committed
by her which is referred to in the order under challenge. Learned
single Judge has, by the order under challenge, set aside the dismissal
order dated 22.08.2014 and has directed consequential payment to be
made to the writ petitioner, who was otherwise to retire on
31.08.2014. It is this order which is under challenge before us.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that
the writ petitioner was dismissed by the competent authority for
proved misconduct and no procedural lapse could be attributed and
therefore the discretion and wisdom of the disciplinary authority could
not have been gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, more particularly when the appellate authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had confirmed the order. It is submitted that the order passed by
learned single Judge is unsustainable and the same be quashed and
set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ petitioner
has submitted that, not only no misconduct was committed by the writ
petitioner, but even if the record as it stands against the writ petitioner
is accepted on its face value, the background in which the dismissal
order is passed would speak of not only illegality, but malafide as well
and therefore learned single Judge has rightly set aside the dismissal
order. It is submitted that inspite of the writ petitioner having crossed
the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014, only because of the
impugned order in the writ petition, which was one week before her
retirement, terminal dues have stood forfeited and the relief granted
by learned single Judge be not interfered with. It is submitted that this
appeal be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
having considered the material on record this Court finds that the
dismissal order dated 22.08.2014 which is on record itself takes into
consideration, 10 orders/ documents. On the face of it, following
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
picture has emerged:
5.1 The writ petitioner had some grievance against her non-
promotion, for which she had approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.15927 of 2006 wherein she had succeeded in the year 2008.
There was non-compliance of the directions, for which she was
constrained to approach this Court by filing contempt proceedings,
which was entertained by this Court, appropriate directions were
given, even cost was imposed of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation
qua which the State authorities were aggrieved, contempt appeal was
filed and in that appeal, the portion of imposition of cost/
compensation was set aside, however the authorities were under
coercion to comply with the directions. Ostensibly those directions
were projected to have been complied with, however charge memo
was also issued to the writ petitioner on 28.09.2010. Final explanation
was asked for by the disciplinary authority on 03.08.2011, which in
this case is District Collector, Thanjavur, which she had offered on
22.08.2011. The papers were lying as it is for years.
5.2 The writ petitioner was to retire on 31.08.2014. Just a week
before that, on 22.08.2014 dismissal order was passed, inter-alia
referring therein contempt proceedings and the contempt appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.3 On overall consideration of the material on record, including
the order dated 22.08.2014 and the documents referred therein, we
find that, the charge against the writ petitioner of not reporting to the
Head of Department in the year 2009-2010, could not be treated to be
that grave, which would have warranted dismissal from service, that
too at the fague end of the service career of the writ petitioner. We
find that, whether such a charge could be sustained itself is an issue,
however at this belated stage, that issue need not be gone into.
Suffice it to note that, testing from any parameter, dismissal ordered
by the disciplinary authority was unsustainable, procedurally, in
proportionality and also timing wise. Setting aside of that order, in no
way can be said to be error, much less any error apparent on the face
of record on the part of learned single Judge in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which may call for any
interference by us under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. This appeal
therefore needs to be dismissed.
5.4 We find that the arbitrariness on the part of the respondent
authorities were so grave that, at one stage, this Court had imposed
cost to the extent of Rs.30,000/- which was termed to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation, which the Division Bench, at the relevant time had set
aside, which the State authorities have earned that status quo ante to
be restored, however at this stage, we are more concerned with
consequential payment of retirement dues of the writ petitioner and
therefore we have restrained ourselves from imposing any cost.
5.5 Since this Court had, on 09.09.2022, requested the officer
who had passed the order dated 22.08.2014 to be present, we note
that the officer is present before this Court and he has replied to the
queries asked for, to the extent necessary.
6. In view of above, the following order is passed:-
6.1 This appeal is dismissed.
6.2 Without prejudice to the rights of the State to approach
the higher forum if it desires, learned Additional Advocate General on
instructions states that, the terminal dues of the writ petitioner shall
be paid not later than four weeks from today.
6.3 No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
survive.
6.4 List the matter on 10.10.2022 under the caption 'for
Reporting Compliance'.
(P.U.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
12.09.2022
Index:No
mmi/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2064 of 2022
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
