Madras High Court
S.Gunasekaran vs The Secretary To Government on 10 March, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012, 1 of 2013 and
C.M.P(MD)No.8218 of 2016
S.Gunasekaran ... Appellant/ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Dept.,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Chennai-10.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Karur Region, Karur.
4.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Trichy.
5.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Karur Region, Karur.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
6.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai. ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9638 of 2011 dated 09.10.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Mahadevan
For R1 to R5 : Mr.R.Ragaventran,
Government Advocate
For R6 : Mr.J.Anandkumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
The appellant was an employee of the respondent Department,
against whom the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and concluded, as
the Enquiry Officer has filed a report stating that out of 4 charges framed
against the appellant, charges 1 and 2 were not proved and 3 & 4 were
proved.
2.Considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority viz., third
respondent, Karur, by order dated 30.11.2003 passed a detailed order stating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
that, three out of four charges framed against the appellant, had been
proved, that means, charge Nos.1, 2 and 3 had been proved. Accordingly, he
inflicted the punishment of withholding the increment of the appellant
without cumulative effect for two years.
3.Aggrieved over the said order passed by the third respondent, the
appellant preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who having
considered the said appeal, had passed an order dated 15.03.2008, under
which, the second respondent has confirmed the order passed by the original
authority viz., the third respondent. Still aggrieved over the same, the
appellant preferred revision before the first respondent and the first
respondent having considered the said revision has pointed out that though
the Enquiry Officer's report says that charges 1 and 2 were not proved and 3
& 4 alone were proved, both the authorities concurrently held that the
charges 1, 2 and 3 were proved and 4 not proved. Therefore, it shows that
either it is based on the non application of mind or otherwise if the original
authority decided to differ with the conclusion given by the Enquiry Officer
to that extent notice should have been given to the delinquent, that is the
appellant, without which, since such a conclusion has been erroneously
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
arrived at as against the report of the Enquiry Officer given, which has been
confirmed by the appellate authority, the second respondent. The said
modus operandi adopted by the said authorities having been found fault
with by the first respondent, he passes an order by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.
257, Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated
07.07.2011, under which, the first respondent had remitted the matter back
to the original authority viz., the third respondent to revisit the issue and
rehear the matter only from where the discrepancy occurred, that means, if
at all the original authority wants to differ with the conclusion arrived at by
the Enquiry Officer proper notice has to be given to the delinquent, that is
the appellant and thereafter, a decision can be taken.
4.Though this order is infact in favour of the appellant, who was the
writ petitioner before the Writ Court he had chosen to file a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.9638 of 2011 which was considered and rejected by the order
impugned if the writ Court dated 09.10.2012.
5.We have gone through the order passed by the learned Judge dated
09.10.2012, where the learned Judge having discussed the four charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
framed against the appellant/writ petitioner and after having gone through
the orders passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority,
had decided that the revisional authority, viz., the first respondent since he
has rectified the mistake committed by both the original authority as well as
the appellate authority and he remanded the matter back for reconsideration
only from that stage, where proper course of action should have been taken
by the original authority which has been rightly taken by the revisional
authority, therefore, confirming the same the learned Judge rejected the plea
raised by the petitioner before the Writ Court.
6.Insofar as the said view taken by the learned Judge in the order
impugned is concerned, we are of the considered view that absolutely there
is no error committed by the learned Judge. If at all the disciplinary
authority is to differ from the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer in the
report to be submitted in this regard he has to give notice to the delinquent,
and after hearing the delinquent only, such a different view can be taken by
the disciplinary authority without which since such a view has been taken
and that order passed by the original authority since has been confirmed by
the appellate authority it was corrected by the orders of the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
which was impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, the reasons given by
the learned Judge in confirming the said order of the first respondent which
was impugned before the writ Court is fully justifiable and hence, the same
does not warrant any interference from this Court.
7.In the result, this writ appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.K., J.) & (K.K.R.K, J.)
10.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Dept.,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Chennai-10.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Karur Region, Karur.
4.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Trichy.
5.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Karur Region, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Ns
W.A.(MD)No.1104 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012, 1 of 2013 and
C.M.P(MD)No.8218 of 2016
10.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
