Madras High Court
S.Murugaiah Joseph vs The Superintending Engineer on 16 June, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :16.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
S.Murugaiah Joseph ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Electricity Board,
Thanjavur Electricity Distribution,
Circle, Thanjavur.
2.Chief Engineer,
Distribution Trichirapalli Region,
Thennur, Trichy-17.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai. ... Respondents /Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this
Court to set aside the order dated 15.03.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.5824 of
2006 on the file of this Court.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.N.Tamilmani
For Respondents : Ms.M.Parameswari
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by
the writ Court dated 15.03.2013 in W.P(MD).No.5824 of 2006.
2. That the writ petitioner/appellant joined in the respondents Board
as Electrical Tester in 1963. He was promoted as Junior Engineer in 1970
and was placed as Junior Engineer I Grade in 1978. His name was included
in AD promotional panel/list and seniority also was fixed in 1992.
3. While so, on 04.08.1992, there has been an illegal gratification
case, pursuant to which, a charge memo was given on 07.02.1994 against
the petitioner/appellant for the charge that allegedly, he received a sum of
Rs.50/- as bribe from one Ganesan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
4. On 12.09.1995, explanation to the charge memo was given by the
appellant/petitioner.
5. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted and based on the Enquiry
Officer's report as the charge framed against the appellant/petitioner was
proved, accepting the Enquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority
inflicted the maximum punishment against the appellant/petitioner (i.e.,)
dismissal of service on 23.09.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner approached
the writ Court by filing a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.4094 of 1996 where
a remand order has been passed on 20.06.2001, pursuant to which,
a re-hearing was taken place where the statement of witnesses was recorded
by the Enquiry Officer on 11.03.2002. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer filed
a report dated 30.06.2002 against the petitioner/appellant stating that the
charge has been proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was given
to the petitioner on 21.09.2002, for which, the petitioner/appellant gave
explanation on 08.11.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
6. Not satisfying with the said explanation to the second show cause
notice given, the Disciplinary Authority (i.e.,) the first respondent passed an
order of removal from service against the petitioner/appellant on
27.11.2002, as against which, the petitioner/appellant preferred an appeal on
13.12.2002 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 26.05.2003 and
thereafter, a mercy petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant on
13.06.2003, that was also dismissed by the Competent Authority on
05.03.2004, as against which, the petitioner/appellant preferred a writ
petition in W.P(MD).No.5824 of 2006 on 08.04.2006, which was also
dismissed on 15.03.2013 (i.e.,) the order impugned in this writ appeal which
was filed on 26.04.2013, that is how, this Intra-Court Appeal has come up.
7. In the last hearing, we heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and for the arguments of the respondents' counsel, we posted the matter
today. Today, we have heard Ms.M.Parameswari, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents/TANGEDCO.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
8. After having gone through the records filed before this Court, we
felt that since the illegal gratification of Rs.50/- that was a charge made
against the petitioner/appellant, has been proved as per the Enquiry Officer's
report and as against the Enquiry Officer's report, no finger has been shown
by the petitioner/appellant to state that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, we cannot find fault with the said enquiry conducted by the
respondents/employer.
9. After enquiry which was properly conducted, since the charge
against the petitioner/appellant has been proved, for the said charge, the
punishment was awarded by the respondents/employer.
10. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner/appellant had
rendered service from 1963 till 2002. Therefore, very many years (i.e.,) long
years of service have been put in by the petitioner/appellant to the
respondents/TANGEDCO.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
11. After putting such a long years of service, if ultimately the
maximum punishment of dismissal of service is inflicted against the
petitioner/appellant, by thus, the empty doors have been shown to him that
will be a shocking exercise to be faced by any employee.
12. No doubt, 50 Rupees illegal gratification case has been proved on
the departmental enquiry, for which, certainly the petitioner/appellant is
liable to be punished. But, at the same time, the maximum punishment of
dismissal of service whether is proportionate to such proven charge is a
question.
13. Though it has been settled in a number of judgments that the
Court normally would not interfere with the proportionality of the
punishment, unless and until it shocks the conscience of the Court as to the
proportionality, in this case, we feel that since 50 Rupees illegal
gratification case even though has been proved, for which, the
petitioner/appellant is liable to be punished, the maximum punishment of
dismissal of service for an employee who had put in service of 37 years and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
odd, is definitely a disproportionate punishment as after serving such a long
years of nearly about four decades, the employee cannot be sent out without
a single pie, as definitely a family would have been in expectation from the
petitioner/appellant at his retirement or at his final day of his service to get
some substantial amount by way of retirement benefits which would be
greatly helpful to the family, who is the dependent of the
petitioner/appellant.
14. Therefore, we feel that the said punishment of dismissal of service
inflicted against the petitioner/appellant can be modified into a compulsory
retirement.
15. For the said modification, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents has registered her objection.
16. The reason for such objection is that, if the punishment is
modified one into compulsory retirement, the appellant/petitioner would get
retiral benefits as well as pensionary benefits. Such pensionary benefits
would be forever till his death and therefore, if that kind of pensionary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
benefits is extended to an erring person like the petitioner/appellant, that
would be construed as a premium being paid to him for the proven charge of
illegal gratification.
17. The said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents/TANGEDCO is also to be taken into account.
18. By taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view
that while modifying the punishment into compulsory retirement, we want
to restrict the benefits to be paid to the petitioner/appellant as to the retiral
benefits, but not the pensionary benefits.
19. In view of the aforestated discussion, we are inclined to dispose
of this writ appeal with the following orders:
(i) that the punishment awarded against the petitioner/appellant by the
respondents Department (i.e.,) dismissal of service, is hereby modified into
the punishment of compulsory retirement;
(ii) as a result, the appellant/petitioner would be entitled to get the
retiral benefits as if that he was compulsorily retired from service;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
(iii) However, we make it clear that by virtue of compulsory
retirement, the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to seek for any pensionary
benefits which can be denied by the respondents/TANGEDCO.
20. To that extent, the order passed by the learned Judge which is
impugned herein dated 15.03.2013, is also modified.
21. As per the modified order, the needful shall be undertaken by the
respondents/TANGEDCO and the retiral benefits shall be paid to the
appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
22. With these modifications, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K., J.) & (K.K.R.K, J.)
16.06.2023
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
ssb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Electricity Board,
Thanjavur Electricity Distribution,
Circle, Thanjavur.
2.Chief Engineer,
Distribution Trichirapalli Region,
Thennur, Trichy-17.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ssb
W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2013
16.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
