Madras High Court
The Secretary To The Government vs V.G.Ravichandran on 31 January, 2023
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
and CMP No. 19651 of 2016
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Employment and Training,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
(Now present address Guindy, Chennai -32)
3. The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Ariyalur, Perambalur District. ...Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
V.G.Ravichandran ... Respondent/Petitioner
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 04.04.2013 passed in W.P. No.8870 of 2006 and to set aside the
same.
For Appellants : Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr. K.Srinivasamurthy
for M/s.Row & Reddy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
This Intra Court Appeal is at the instance of the Government
challenging the order of the Writ Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by
the respondent seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the punishment of
compulsory retirement imposed on him under G.O.(D) No.129 dated
27.02.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
2. The respondent was working as a Store-Keeper in an Industrial
Training Institute was visited with the charge memo containing 15 charges.
An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who returned a finding
that all the charges except charge No.9 stood proved. He however, added
that no financial loss has been caused to the Government because of the
conduct of the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a major penalty of compulsory
retirement on the petitioner. The necessary approval from the TNPSC was
also obtained. Aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court in WP
No.8870 of 2006.
3. Before the Writ Court, the respondent had contended that most
of the charges were beyond the scope of work assigned to him. It was also
pointed out that the Junior Assistant who had deposed that the respondent
directed her to correct the relevant tenders was examined in the absence of
the respondent and he had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
4. On behalf of the Government it was contended that the
respondent was part of a larger scheme evolved by the persons working in
the Industrial Training Institutes to procure unwanted materials and
materials at higher costs. The Writ Court, however, rejected the contention
of the Government and found that the petitioner cannot be termed as guilty
of all the charges. The Writ Court found that many of the accusations made
against the petitioner were actually beyond the scope of his work. The Writ
Court also took into account the observation of the Enquiry Officer to the
effect that there has been no financial loss to the Government by the actions
of the respondent.
5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Writ Court
concluded that the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved delinquency. Therefore, the Writ Court set
aside the punishment and directed reinstatement with continuity of service
and all other benefits including pension. The Writ Court however denied
back wages and required the respondent to approach the Authorities for
back wages. The Government is on Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
6. We have heard Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and
Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Row & Reddy,
for the respondent.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would vehemently
contend that the Writ Court had overlooked the fact that the petitioner was
the part of the larger conspiracy to cause financial loss to the Government
and therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was commensurate
with the proved delinquencies. He would also point out that the petitioner
had not sought for any opportunity to cross examine the Junior Assistant.
He would further point out that the other delinquents, viz. the two principals
who were also charge sheeted along with the petitioner were also punished
with compulsory retirement and cut in pension since one of them had
retired.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
8. Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would however submit that once it is found that most of the
charges were beyond the scope of the work assigned to the respondent, he
cannot be held liable for commissions and omissions of other persons. He
would also contend that he was a Store-Keeper and he was only concerned
with collating the materials and placing it before the principals who have
the authority. He would also point out that the respondent cannot
independently decide on the cost and place orders for purchase or otherwise.
9. We have considered the rival submissions.
10. The Writ Court had set out the scope of work of the
respondent and it reads as follows:
a) Obtaining requisition letter from the concerned Junior
Training Officer/Assistant Training Officer for procuring
materials required by them;
b) He has to verify with the Stock Register whether the
materials required are available in stores;
c) If not, he has to call for quotation from the Government
approved firms;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
d) He has to prepare comparative statement of the firms who
have quoted;
e) After getting approval of the Principal, purchase orders
have to be placed with the firms who have quoted less;
f) To get the certificate of the concerned Junior Training
Officer/Assistant Training Officer/Training Officer to the
effect that the goods received is in good condition and
according to the specifications;
g) To enter the goods received details in goods receivable
book and get the authentication of the higher-ups;
h) Issue of goods/materials to the sections under proper
indent;
i) To pass the bills of the firms subject to the availability of
funds.
The charges against the respondent are as follows:
a) Purchases worth Rs.1,11,196/- were procured from
unapproved firms;
b) Without proper requisition from the concerned Junior
Training Officers/Assistant Training Officer, stores were
procured;
c) Purchase files were dealt by the Store-keeper and
principal without passing through office
Manager/Administrative Officer;
d) Tampering of office records;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
e) Official procedure violated in passing Bills;
f) Procurement of Table cloth and emergency lamps against
provision;
g) Double payment for singe purchase by raising bogus bills;
h) Seizure of blank letter pads of suppliers from Store-keeper
by Special Audit Team:
i) Opening of tender documents ahead of scheduled date;
j) Without proper approval of the principal, Store-keeper has
sent quotation requisition letter to suppliers in person;
k) Improper admissibility of lorry freights.
11. A reading of the scope of work and charges levelled against
the respondent would show that the finding of the Writ Court that many of
them are outside the scope of the work of the respondent has to be
sustained. Once we sustain the finding of the Writ Court that many of the
charges are outside the scope of work of the respondent, coupled with the
finding of the Enquiry Officer that there has been no financial loss caused to
the Government because of the action of the respondent, we have to
necessarily confirm the finding of the Writ Court that the punishment
imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the proved delinquencies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
12. However, we find that the Writ Court has set aside the
punishment in full and left it to the discretion of the Authorities to pay back
wages or not. Once it is found that the punishment is disproportionate and
the punishment is interfered with on the ground of dis-proportionality, it is
for the Court to impose the alternative punishment. It cannot leave it to the
discretion of the Authority. We are therefore constrained to interfere with
the order of the Writ Court with reference to the punishment that is to be
imposed on the respondent.
13. Considering the nature of the delinquencies and the fact that
there has been no financial loss to the Government because of the actions of
the respondent and most of the charges are only procedural in nature, we
find that a stoppage in increment would serve as a proper punishment. We
therefore impose a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative
effect for a period of three years. The punishment will operate as on
27.02.2006, the date on which the original punishment was imposed. It is
seen that the respondent has now attained the age of superannuation.
Therefore they cannot be reinstatement. There will be a direction to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
State to calculate back wages payable to the respondent by implementing
the punishment that has been imposed by us as above and pay all arrears of
salary and other benefits. Needless to state that the respondent would also
be entitled to pension.
14. We dispose of the Writ Appeal with the above directions, the
order of the Writ Court will stand set aside and the punishment of stoppage
of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect is imposed
on the respondent. The salary and other benefits payable to the respondent
shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. Before parting with this case, we wish to point out that the
order of the Writ Court was passed on 04.04.2013 and the Writ Appeal was
filed with a delay of 869 days on 03.06.2016. There was a delay in re-
presentation, which was condoned on 15.07.2016 and the delay in
presentation was condoned on 25.10.2016. In the interregnum, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
respondent had filed WP No.8149 of 2016 for implementation of the order
of the Writ court. A Division Bench of this Court on 09.12.2016 has passed
the following order:
“4. A perusal of the Judgment of the learned Single
Judge, shows that, the following operative directions were
issued in the matter.
"... 17. On the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside and the respondents are
directed to re-instate the petitioner with continuity of
service and all pensionary benefits, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
18. In respect of back wages, it is made
clear that it is open to the petitioner to approach the
respondents by way of a 3 written representation and
if, any such representation is made by the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
the same shall be decided by the first respondent,
according to law, within a period of six weeks
thereafter. No order as to costs."
5. What troubles us is that, the appellants, to date
have not re-instated the respondent, despite the fact, that there
is no stay on the operation of the impugned Judgment.
6. We are of the view that the appellants are in
violation of the order of the learned Single Judge. At this
juncture, Ms.A.Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader says
that, she will get instructions in the matter.”
16. Though the Division Bench directed the matter to be listed on
19.12.2016, it was directed to be posted after Christmas Vacation i.e., in the
first Week of January 2017, but it saw the light of the day only on
16.04.2019, after almost 2 ½ years. Despite the fact that there was no
interim order all through, even during the pendency of the Appeal, the order
of the Writ Court has not been complied with. This shows the lethargy and
slackness on the part of this Court also in listing these Appeals. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
Registry is directed to ensure that such lethargy does not continue and
further ensure that the matters are listed on the adjourned dates properly.
17. We should also point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that interim orders granted have to be re-visited once in six
months and if they are not extended they will lapse. By not listing cases on
the adjourned dates, the Registry will be aiding persons to allow cases to
drift and proceed with the execution or dispossession or recovery citing the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will render dispensation of
justice a mockery.
(R.S.M., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
31.01.2023
jv
Index : Yes
Internet :Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Employment and Training,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
(Now present address Guindy, Chennai -32)
3. The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Ariyalur, Perambalur District.
Copy to :
The Registrar Judicial,
Madras High Court,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
jv
W.A.No.1571 of 2016
and CMP No. 19651 of 2016
31.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
