Madras High Court
T.K.Ravi vs The Presiding Officer on 3 January, 2023
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
T.K.Ravi .... Petitioner
vs
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem - 7.
2. The Management,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Kovai) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director,
(Erode Division),
Chennimalai Road,
Erode. .... Respondents
Writ 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 award
dated 18.09.2014 made in I.D.No.11 of 2008 passed by the 1st respondent,
quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits
by considering G.O.(D) No.32, dated 20.02.2014 issued by the Department of
Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For respondents : R1-Court
Mr.M.Muralivinoth for R2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated
18.09.2014 made in I.D.No.11 of 2008 passed by the 1st respondent and
consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with
continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits, by considering
G.O.(D) No.32, dated 20.02.2014 issued by the Department of Cooperative,
Food and Consumer Protection.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the 2nd
respondent Transport Corporation as apprentice on 20.09.1985 and was
appointed as Junior Assistant on 06.06.1987 and he was made permanent on
23.09.1988. On 17.06.1989, a case was registered against the petitioner for the
offence under sections 302, 498-A and 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act alleging that he was responsible for the death of his wife and
was arrested on 19.06.2989 and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
case was taken on file in S.C.No.4 of 1991 before the Principal sessions Court,
Erode and after trial, he was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous
imprisonment by judgment dated 10.04.1991. Against which, the petitioner
filed appeal in C.A.No.327 of 1991 and the same was also dismissed by this
Court. Thereafter, the petitioner completed the sentence imposed in S.C.No.4
of 1991. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from
service on 10.06.1991. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.8954/1991
during the pendency of C.A.No.327 of 1991 and the same came to be dismissed
on 11.02.1999. The petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.11 of 2008 on
the file of Labour Court, Salem, against the order of dismissal. The said I.D.
was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition with the aforesaid relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence for
which he was convicted did not relate to office matter as it was a case of
death of his wife. The said offence has not been committed in the course of
employment or at the place of employment or in connection with employment.
Learned counsel would further submit that Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India provides that a person holding a civil post cannot be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank without holding the disciplinary proceedings and
without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and no employee can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
dismissed or removed from service without observing the rules of natural
justice. But the respondents have mechanically and blindly applied Clause 16
(x) of the Standing Order and dismissed the petitioner from service. In support
of his contention, learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court
made in W.P.No.6833 of 2006 dated 18.11.2010.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would
contend that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 302
IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and he has also
undergone the punishment in the criminal case. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for reinstatement in service or for grant of any other benefits.
6. This Court, considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
7. The admitted facts herein are that the petitioner was charged for the
offences under sections 302, 498-A and 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act for the death of his wife and after fullfledged trial, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment in S.C.No.4
of 1991 by the Principal Sessions Court, Erode. The appeal filed by him against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
the same before this Court in C.A.No.327 of 1991 was also dismissed. The
petitioner was dismissed from service on 10.06.1991. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal, cannot be
countenanced in law. Article 311(2) provides that the enquiry shall not be
necessary where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the
ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. In other
words, a civil servant convicted on a criminal charge is liable to dismissed
without any further proceeding under Article 311(2).
8. Moreover, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner made in W.P.No.6833 of 2006 dated 18.11.2010 is not applicable to
the present facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, the petitioner
has put in 33 years of service and the order of dismissal was also not set aside
but the petitioner was directed to make fresh representation before the
Government for reconsideration. Here is the case, where the petitioner has
not even put more than 4 years of service. The said decision of this Court is not
applicable to the present case.
9. Further, the doctrine of principle of natural justice has no application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
when the authority concerned is of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to
hold an enquiry and that it would be against the interest of security of the
Corporation to continue in employment the offender-workman when serious
misconducts have been proved against him. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court had
repeatedly held that when a civil servant is convicted for criminal offence, he
is not entitled to hearing by disciplinary authority or by any departmental
enquiry before imposing punishment of dismissal. The Labour Court has
considered all these aspects and has rightly rejected the claim of the
petitioner, in which, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality to interfere with.
10. In view of he above reasons, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
03.01.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
vsi
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem - 7.
2. The Management,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
(Kovai) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director,
(Erode Division),
Chennimalai Road,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
J.NISHA BANU,J.
vsi
W.P.No.7969 of 2015
03.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
