Madras High Court
Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer vs Thirumathi V.Erangimuthu ... 1St on 20 February, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD)No.391 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.391 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3954 of 2022
Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,
A/M, Meenakshi Sundereswarar Thirukkoil,
Madurai – 625 001. ... Appellant/1st respondent
-vs-
1. Thirumathi V.Erangimuthu ... 1st respondent/petitioner
2. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu.
3. The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu. ... 2nd and 3rd Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
Page 1 of 9
W.A.(MD)No.391 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.3606 of 2016,
dated 17.12.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
For R1 : Mr.P.Murughadasan
For R2 and R3 : Mr.B.Ramanathan
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(MD).No.3606 of 2016 dated 17.12.2021, the present intra-Court appeal is
preferred by the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi
Sundereswarar Temple.
2. The 1st respondent herein is the successful petitioner before the learned
Single Judge, was appointed as a sweeper under compassionate appointment on
30.03.2013. On 05.06.2015, when counting of Hundi was underway, the
1st respondent / writ petitioner was found removing coins of various
denomination worth Rs.170/- and concealed inside her blouse. This was noticed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
by the Inspector (HR & CE) Madurai North and the Office Superintendant and
immediately the said money was recovered from her. After recording her
statement, she was placed under suspension. Charge memo was issued to her to
explain why departmental action should not be taken against her for stealing
temple money and causing loss and disrespect to the temple. The 1st respondent
/ writ petitioner had confessed her guilt and sought for pardoning. The Joint
Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, on
completion of enquiry submitted a report holding the 1st respondent / writ
petitioner guilty of all the charges and charges found true. Consequently, the 1 st
respondent / writ petitioner was terminated from service vide proceedings dated
18.12.2015. In the termination order, she was informed that she can prefer
appeal to the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi
Sundereswarar Temple, if she is aggrieved by the order. The 1st respondent /
writ petitioner has chosen to challenge the termination order by filing a writ
petition stating that the impugned order dated 18.12.2015 passed without any
authority or law.
3. It is contended that the 1st respondent / writ petitioner is an illiterate
women knowing nothing even to count the coins. She was forced to sign in the
statement and made a scape goat, contending that there is no CCTV camera
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
evidence to prove her guilt of stealing Hundi money. It is further contended that
the respondent who issued the impugned order is not the competent authority to
remove her from service. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition
by observing that the signature of the 1st respondent / writ petitioner go to show
that she is an illiterate women and she has signed the papers prepared by others
without knowing the consequences.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the
present appeal is filed stating that the learned Single Judge has not applied her
mind while appreciating the voluntary admission of the 1st respondent / writ
petitioner and the statements of the officers who had recovered coins of various
denomination of worth Rs.170/- concealed inside the blouse of the 1 st
respondent / writ petitioner. The enquiry before terminating the 1st respondent /
writ petitioner, an opportunity was given to her to explain the charges. Having
chosen not to contest and confessing the guilt after termination, getting external
aid, she has created the documents and also cast as a person against the officials
who had taken action against the person who had without any compulsion /
stolen the temple money.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
retention of the 1st respondent / writ petitioner in service will bring bad repute
to the institution and also dangerous to the asset of the temple.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would
submit that the 1st respondent / writ petitioner joined service on 30.03.2013.
Her probation period is two years. Though the 1st respondent / writ petitioner
has completed two years of her service, her probation was not declared. With
malafied intention to terminate her and to appoint somebody of their choice, the
action being initiated against her exploiting her illiteracy. Therefore, the
termination of her service is no way contrary to law.
7. The counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would further submit that
there is no proof for the charge of theft. The Impugned Order of the Joint
Commissioner / Executive Officer was challenged by the writ petitioner by
sending a representation to the Commissioner Appeals. Since no action was
taken, she preferred the writ petition claiming that the enquiry conducted
against the writ petitioner is farce. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
8. A perusal of the records reveals that only after her termination, the writ
petitioner has invented multiple stories of defense starting from malafide, abuse
and improper inquiry. Whereas the records discloses that she was caught red
handed while the counting process was under way. She never protested but
having caught red handed she had been repeatedly pleading mercy quoting her
family situation. She has gone to the extent of saying that she is not even
capable of counting coins and also made an attempt to impress upon this Court
that she has given a representation to the appellate authority but not considered.
However, when the counsel was asked to produce proof for forwarding such
representation, the counsel was unable to produce it. The improvement and
embellishment of act stage by stage with the external aid and advice is false
scene.
9. In this case, however the bare fact that the 1st respondent /
writ petitioner who was appointed as a sweeper by (HR & CE) found with coins
of multiple denomination concealed inside her blouse while counting of Hundi
was underway remains unshakable. Whether a capital punishment of removal
from service warrants is the point to be addressed though that was not
canvassed by the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. This Court giving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
anxious consideration though it appears to be a theft of Rs.170/- alone but the
way in which the theft committed without any computation and the way in
which the 1st respondent had reacted after the order of termination accusing all
the officials without any reservation indicates that she is not fit to continue in
employment. Her reinstation will definitely bring disrepute to the (HR & CE)
Department, which is already suffering serious allegations.
10. Therefore, this Court find that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[G.J., J.] [R.P., J.]
20.02.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
rgm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
To
1. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu.
2. The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
rgm
and
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
