Madras High Court
A.Jeyaraj vs The Chief General Manager on 4 August, 2023
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
A.Jeyaraj ... Petitioner in both petitions
-vs-
1.The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai-2.
2.The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Madurai Telecom District,
Madurai-625 002.
3.The Deputy General Manager (New Services),
CTMX Building, Tallakulam,
Madurai-625 002.
4.The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, Madras. ... Respondents in both petitions
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.12629 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call
for the records relating to the order made by the Hon'ble Administrative
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No.1105/2011, the fourth respondent herein, dated
13.03.2013 and quash the same consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 3
to grant promotion to the petitioner under BCR (Binial Cadre Review) scheme
and extend all other monetary benefits.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.14516 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the impugned order
of the first respondent issued in his reference No.VIG/2-2058/09, dated
19.05.2010 and the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, dated 29.09.2011 made in M.P.No.641 of 2011 and O.A.No.
1244 of 2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to treat as the
petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.06.2010 and to regularise the
period of suspension as on duty and to pay all the consequential benefits,
arrears, revised pension and other monetary benefits together with 12%
interest for the 13 months delayed payment of terminal benefits and other
facilities that are used to be paid to the retired employees.
For Petitioner (in W.P.(MD)No.12629 of 2014)
: Mr.K.K.Senthil Velan
For Petitioner (in W.P.(MD)No.14516 of 2011)
: Mr.S.Sukumaran
For Respondents : No Appearance for R1, R3 & R4
Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India for R2
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
These two writ petitions are by the same petitioner and are
interconnected and therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment.
W.P.(MD)No.14516 of 2011:-
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 29.09.2011 passed in M.A.No.
641 of 2011 and O.A.No.1244 of 2011.
3. The above original application is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 19.05.2010 whereby, the petitioner was imposed with a
punishment of compulsory retirement. The miscellaneous application was filed
to condone the delay of 123 days in filing the original application. The
Tribunal by the order impugned in the writ petition has dealt with the original
application on merits. However at the same time in paragraph 3 it has held
that it does not find any convincing reasons to condone the delay of 123 days
and dismisses the miscellaneous application. Such a view of the Tribunal is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
erroneous in law. We reverse the findings in paragraph 3 of the order and hold
that the petitioner has explained by sufficient cause the dealy of 123 days and
condone the delay in filing the original application and as such the M.A.No.
641 of 2011 shall stand allowed.
4. Now considering the order passed in the main original application in
O.A.No.1244 of 2011, it is seen that the petitioner was working as a Section
Supervisor with the respondent Corporation and a charge memorandum dated
05.10.2007 was served on the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) CDA, 2006. The three charges
against the petitioner are that firstly he had made a trip to the United States
of America during the month of January-February 2006 without proper
permission. The second charge is that even after he was denied permission,
again in the month of November 2006, he had made a trip to the United States
of America. The third charge against the petitioner is that he had taken an
advance of Rs.6,000/- on 23.09.2006 for availing Leave Travel Concession and
submitted a bill for a sum of Rs.6,879/- for the journey to Mumbai along with
his family members, but however, it turned out that he did not undertake the
journey and had cancelled the tickets and thus had made a false LTC claim.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
5. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 27.10.2007 denying the
charges. It is his case that on account of medical emergency, he had to visit
the United States and as far as the LTC claim is concerned, that he has
voluntarily repaid the amount. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the
explanantion of the petitioner and appointed an Enquiry Officer who after a
detailed oral enquiry, submitted a report on 31.01.2009. The Enquiry Officer
found that all the three charges stood proved. Thereafter, a second show cause
notice was issued. The petitioner submitted his further explanation and by an
order dated 09.06.2009, the Disciplinary Authority exonerated the petitioner
of all the three charges. However, the first respondent being the Reviewing
Authority, initiated suo motu review, proposed to disagree with the findings of
the Disciplinary Authority and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner
herein on 30.03.2010. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on
23.04.2010. After considering the representation, the Reviewing Authority held
that in respect of charge under Article 2, he has not even denied the fact that
he was refused permission and thereafter, he went to the United States in the
month of November 2006. The Reviewing Authority further considered the fact
that the charge official did not even have anything to say against the third
charge and he has only stated that he has voluntarily repaid the amount
claimed by him. After considering the same, the Reviewing Authority imposed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
a punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the same,
the original application was filed, which was dismissed by the Tribunal.
6. Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner would submit that the Reviewing Authority exercising the
power of suo motu revision, imposed a harsh punishment of compulsory
retirement just 26 days before his actual date of superannuation on account
of which, the petitioner could not be promoted to the next higher post. He
would further submit that only on account of the medical emergency, the
petitioner had to visit the United States of America and even in respect of the
LTC, he has voluntarily refunded the amount. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances in detail, the Disciplinary Authority has exonerated him.
Even if the Reviewing Authority found that the exoneration is incorrect,
imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate
and unwarranted. Therefore, he would pray that the writ petition be allowed
and the order of the Tribunal be set aside and the petitioner be exonerated of
the charges.
7. Per contra, Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that the
punishment has been imposed by following the due procedures. The petitioner
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
could not even deny the ingredients of the charge and therefore, there is no
ground for this Court to interfere.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side.
9. The power of this Court to interfere in matters of disciplinary enquiry
is no longer res integra as unless the order is perverse or violative of the rules
or procedures or without affording opportunity to the delinquent official, this
Court cannot interfere in the same. Similarly, unless the punishment is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled, the same cannot also be
interfered.
10. In this background, if the contentions of the learned counsel is
taken into account, it can be seen that the petitioner has not alleged any
procedural violation or non affording of any opportunity by the respondents.
Charges were duly framed, enquiry has been duly conducted and the evidence
of the witnesses have been recorded, based on which, the ultimate findings
have been arrived at.
11. In that view of the matter, we are unable to find any ground for
interference with the order of the revisional authority, especially, when he has
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
powers to take a suo motu review and reverse the order of the Disciplinary
Authority. In view of the charge which includes making a false claim of Leave
Travel Concession, we also cannot hold that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the charges levelled. In that view of the matter, we are
unable to agree with any of the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel and accordingly, finding no merits, this writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.
14516 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs.
W.P.(MD)No.12629 of 2014:-
12. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the
Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No.1105/2011, dated
13.03.2013. The original application was filed by the petitioner for a direction
to the respondents to promote him with effect from 20.07.2003 under BCR
scheme on which date, he completes 26 years of service and for further or
other orders.
13. The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the fact that he
completed 26 years of service as on 20.07.2003. But however as on that date,
he was involved in a criminal case and was suspended from service on
22.06.2003. Therefore, his case was considered and was kept in a sealed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
cover. Ultimately, eventhough he was acquitted in the criminal case, the
departmental proceedings ended in punishment by which, he was imposed
with a punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, there was no question
of opening the sealed cover and granting the consequential promotion. On that
score, the original application was dismissed.
14. By the preceding portion of this order, we have upheld the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal and confirmed the punishment imposed
on the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the consequential claim of
promotion in this original application and the writ petition is bound to fail as
the petitioner was not ultimately exonerated of the charges.
15. In the result, this Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.12629 of 2014 is also
dismissed. No costs.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
04.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and 14516 of 2011
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
To:
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Madurai Telecom District,
Madurai-625 002.
W.P.(MD) Nos.12629 of 2014 and
14516 of 2011
04.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
