Madras High Court
V.Vilvanathan vs The Commandant on 10 October, 2025
S.A.No.1251 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 04.08.2025
Pronounced on 10.10 .2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S.A.No.1251 of 2019
V.Vilvanathan ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commandant,
Arohan Mukhyalaya,
Embarkation Headquarters,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Deputy Director General,
Quartermaster General Branch
Canteen Services
Ministry of Defence,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi- 110 001. ...Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, to set aside the
decree and judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in A.S. No.126 of 2017, on
the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
S.A.No.1251 of 2019
Judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed in O.S. No.744 of 2014, on
the file of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : M/s.S.Sadasharam
For Respondents :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Additional Solicitor General
for Mr.Venkataswamy Baby for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
The second appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated
11.01.2018 passed in A.S.No.126 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional
City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated
18.01.2017 in O.S. No.744 of 2014 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai.
2.This second appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaring that the impugned order of
termination dated 30.10.2013 is illegal and non-est in law and for
mandatory injunction directing the 1st respondent to reinstate the plaintiff
into service with service benefits like seniority, pay protection with arrears
of salary and allowances from 30.10.2013 and for cost. The suit was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
dismissed on 18.01.2017. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred in
A.S.No.126 of 2017 before XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The
said appeal was also dismissed on 11.01.2018. Aggrieved by this, the
present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.
3.The case of the plaintiff is that by order dated 27.03.2007 he was
appointed as store keeper and ADLR at Unit Run Canteen, Embarkation
Headquarters, Chennai. The appellant/plaintiff has completed more than
five years of service and the appellant/plaintiff's appointment was
confirmed as storekeeper on completion of the probation period and the
appellant/plaintiff had been discharging his duties diligently and honestly
and by virtue of his hard work he had secured more collections to the
canteen. By way of show cause notice dated 05.07.2013 the
appellant/plaintiff was called upon the respondents/defendants to give
explanation as to why he was using the smart card illegally for purchase of
grocery rather than returning the smart card to OIC URC or Canteen
Manager or Accounts Office, finding that the smart card was used by one
Kamalakannan of Rail Branch of Embarkation Headquarters, Chennai and
his card was lost during December 2011. The appellant/plaintiff has given a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
suitable reply dated 06.07.2013 explaining the circumstances.
3.1. While so, the respondent/defendant issued another show cause
notice on 03.10.2013 stating that the Court of inquiry was conducted and
consequent to the findings of the Court of inquiry it was found that the
appellant/plaintiff had been using the lost smart card of Kamalakkan of Rail
Branch, Embarkation Headquarters, Chennai and the appellant/plaintiff was
called upon to explain in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be
initiated and the services of the appellant/plaintiff should not be terminated
with immediate effect. On receipt of the said show cause notice the
appellant/plaintiff gave an explanation on 11.10.2013 denying the
allegations levelled against him and explained the facts and circumstances
of the case in which the smart card was involved and also requested to grant
leave for one more month from 03.10.2013 to 01.11.2013 so that the
appellant/plaintiff can give adequate medical treatment and protection to his
wife, who was suffering from ailment. In spite of the explanation offered by
the appellant/plaintiff, no charges were framed against the
appellant/plaintiff nor any disciplinary action was initiated and he was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
found guilty of any misconduct. However, quite contrary to the mandatory
provisions of the rule and regulating the terms and conditions of canteen
services dated 28.04.2003 the appellant/plaintiff was terminated from
service as storekeeper from the 1st respondent/defendant establishment and
aggrieved against the same the appellant/plaintiff has filed this suit. The
impugned termination order has been referred by the respondent/defendant
in letter dated 14.09.2001 to Army Headquarters and the letter dated
28.04.2003 of Army Headquarters. Whereas, the letter dated 14.09.2001 is
not in operation as the same had been suppressed. Hence this suit.
4.On the other hand, the defendant submits that the appellant/plaintiff
was appointed as storekeeper cum ADLR Clerk at Unit run Canteen with
effect from 01.07.2007. He was warned on several occasions on account of
indiscipline/negligence of duty and inappropriate conduct. On 05.07.2013 it
has brought to the notice of Officer-in-charge, Unit Run Canteen that the
individual was caught using lost Smart Card No. GC05040595725800J00 in
an unauthorised manner, belonging to UDC K.Kamalakannan of Rail
Branch, Embarkation Headquarters. The findings of the Court of Inquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
beyond doubt established that the appellant/plaintiff was guilty of
possessing the lost smart card of UDC K.Kamalakannan and intentionally
misusing it for his personal benefits in an unauthorised manner. Hence, a
show cause notice was issued to the appellant / plaintiff on 03.10.2013 and
the misconduct of the appellant / plaintiff was proceeded and all
rules/regulations, regulating the terms and conditions of Canteen Services
dated 28.04.2003 was strictly adhered to and his services were terminated
on 30.10.2013 in the interest of the organisation and in the termination
order, a reference is made to both the letters. Though the letter dated
14.09.2001 had been superseded, it has been referred to primarily as in his
appointment letter of 27.04.2017, with regard to the terms and conditions of
his service. Since it is a defence organisation, wherein, discipline and
integrity is of paramount importance. Hence the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
5.The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that as per the rules
and conditions of Civilian Employees of Unit Run Canteen, the plaintiff has
to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority to seek remedy against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
order of the Disciplinary Authority. The First Appellate Court confirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/plaintiff submits
that the order of termination issued against the plaintiff is without any basis
and the same is illegal and against law. He would further submit that the
order of termination dated 30.10.2013 has been passed without any
jurisdiction and authority, by the 1st respondent appointing authority and
therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. His further contention is that the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted by any express provisions in the
rules and regulations dated 28.04.2003 issued governing the service
conditions of the employees of Unit Run Canteen (herein after referred as '
URC '). He would submit that the employees of URC who were terminated
from service without any authority and jurisdiction have challenged the
order of termination by filing civil suit and got the order of termination set
aside with a direction to reinstate them into service with all consequential
service benefits. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
rules regulating the terms and conditions of service of Civilian Employees
of Air Force Unit Run Canteen are paid out of Non Public Funds and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
therefore, the employee of Unit Run Canteen in Air Force are not
Government employees. Hence, the matter relating to the service of URC
employees, the Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted when the relevant
service Rules neither expressly nor by implication have taken away
jurisdiction of civil Court to deal with service matter. While so, the Courts
below have committed grave error by stating that the Civil Court
jurisdiction is ousted without deciding the matter on merits. To support his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2010 Supreme
Court 188. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgement and decree passed
by the Courts below.
7.On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the plaintiff was
charged for using the lost Smart Card Number in an unauthorized manner
belonging to UDC K.Kamalakannan of Rail Branch, Embarkation
Headquarters. Hence, the plaintiff was served with show cause notice and
thereafter a Court of inquiry was ordered by the Commandant, Embarkation
Headquarters. The plaintiff was found guilty and a show cause notice was
issued to the plaintiff on 03.10.2013. The misconduct of the plaintiff was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
proceeded and all Rules/Regulations regulating the terms and conditions of
Canteen services dated 28.04.2003 was strictly followed and he was
terminated from service on 30.10.2013 in the interest of the Organization.
He would further submit that as per the provisions of law, if an employee is
removed from the service or terminated from the service or disciplinary
action is taken against the employee, he should approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal and hence the Civil Court jurisdiction is ousted.
His further contention is that the URC employees are the employees under
Government and only the Central Administrative Tribunal is having
jurisdiction to try the matters relating to the employees. To support his
contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in Union of
India and other Vs. M.Aslam and others reported in (2001 AIR SCW 134).
8.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9.First and foremost question to be addressed in the instant case is the
status of the employees of URCs. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is an
employee of URCs in the Air Force. What is the status of URCs is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
longer res-integra. Earlier the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. Mohd. Aslam, reported in 2001(1) SCC 720 held that employees
of URCs are Government servants, however, doubting the correctness of the
view, a Three Judges Bench decided the issue in the matter of R.R. Pillai
(dead) through Lrs. Vs. Commanding Officer Head Quarter S.A.C (U) &
Ors.,reported in (2009) 13 SCC 311 and Union of India Vs. Dayalu Ram,
reported in (2019) 1 Scale 352. The relevant discussion of the same is
reproduced as hereunder:
9.In the case of Aslam's case (supra) a Bench of this
court proceeded on incorrect factual premises inasmuch as
after noticing that the URCs are not funded from the
Consolidated Fund of India, it went wrong in concluding that
the URCs are funded by CSD as well as the articles were
supplied by the CSD. Unfortunately, it did not notice that no
such funding is made by the CSD. Further, only refundable
loans can be granted by the CSD to URCs at the rate of
interest laid down by it from time to time upon the
application of URCs seeking financial assistance. URCs can
also take from other Non- Public Funds.
10. Further observation regarding supply is also not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
URCs, in fact, purchase articles from CSD depots and it is
not an automatic supply and relation between URCs and
CSDs is that of buyer and seller and not of principal and the
agent. This Court further went wrong in holding that URCs
are parts of CSDs when it has been clearly stated that URCs
are purely private ventures and their employees are by no
stretch of imagination employees of the Government or CSD.
11. Additionally, in Aslam's case (supra) reference was made
to Parimal Chandra Raha and Ors. V. LIC. The Bench
hearing the matter unfortunately did not notice that there
was no statutory obligation on the part of the Central
Government to provide canteen services to its employees.
The profits generated from the URCs are not credited to the
Consolidated Funds, but are distributed to the Non Public
Funds which are used by the units for the welfare of the
troops. As per para 1454 of the Regulations for the Air
Force, 1964 the losses incurred by the non public funds are
not to be borne by the State.
12. The factors highlighted to distinguish Chotelal's case in
our considered opinion are without any material. There was
no scope for making any distinction factually between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
Aslam's case and Chotelelal's case. In our view, therefore,
Aslam's case was not correctly decided.
13. The question whether the URC can be treated as an
instrumentality of the State does not fall for consideration as
that aspect has not been considered by CAT or the High
Court. Apparently, on that score alone we could have
dismissed the appeal. But we find that the High Court placed
reliance on Rule 24 to deny the effect of the appointment.
14. From Rule 4 read with Rule 2 it is clear classification
that all employees are first on probation and they shall be
treated as temporary employees. After completion of five
years they might be declared as permanent employees. They
do not get the status of the Government employees at any
stage. In Aslam's case CAT's order was passed in 1995. By
that time 1999 Rules were not in existence and 1984 rules
were operative.
15. It is to be noted that financial assistance is given, but
interest and penal interest are charged. The URCs can also
borrow from financial institutions. The reference is answered
by holding that employees of URCs are not government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
servants.
16. The High Court has come to an abrupt conclusion about
validity of Rule 24, distinguishing the decision of this Court
in DTC v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress. The Present appellant
had questioned validity of Rule 24. High Court should have
considered that challenge in the proper perspective. But it is
not necessary to examine that question as the original
employee R.R. Pillai has already expired. But, in the peculiar
facts of the case we direct that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs be paid to
his legal representatives within a period of three months in
full and final settlement of all his claims.
11. Later on, in the case of Dayalu Ram (supra), the Apex Court
affirmed the view taken in the case of R.R. Pillai (supra), which is
reproduced as under :-.
9. The position of Unit Run Canteens of the Indian
Army is no longer res integra following the decision of the
three Judge Bench in R.R. Pillai. The reference to the Bench
of three Judges was occasioned as a result of a doubt having
been cast on an earlier decision of a two-Judge Bench in
Union of India versus M. Aslam. The Bench of three Judges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
observed that despite noticing that Unit run Canteens are not
funded from the Consolidated Fund of India, the two Judge
Bench in M. Aslam erroneously held that these canteens are
funded by the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). In R.R.
Pillai after reviewing the position of regimental canteens, this
Court held that the employees have not been granted the
status of government employees at any stage. Hence the
reference was answered by holding that employees of the
Unit run Canteens are not Government employees. This
decision has been followed in a subsequent decision in
Gobinda Prasad Mula.''
10.Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court answered the reference by
holding that employees of the URCs are not Government employees.
Hence, the terms and conditions of service of Canteen employees are
covered by the rules called ''The Rules regulating the Terms and Conditions
of Service of Civilian Employees of Air Force Unit Run Canteen paid out of
Non-Public Funds''. There is no express provision in the rules and
regulations dated 28.04.2003 ousting the Civil Court jurisdiction. Hence,
the Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
11.The next contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff is that in the absence of any provisions providing for
termination from service, the authorities of the URC have no jurisdiction to
pass the order of termination as a punishment against the appellant/plaintiff
without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the
Rules and Regulations dated 28.04.2003. He would further submit that the
respondents / defendants have neither followed proper legal procedures nor
the principles of natural justice, in terminating the service of the appellant.
According to him, the action taken against the appellant/plaintiff and the
termination order are penal in nature, however, no charge memo was issued
on the appellant, no explanation was called for from him and without
providing opportunity to raise his defence, terminated him from service.
Hence, the action taken by the Respondents are not legally sustainable. The
learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the termination of the
appellant/plaintiff is against law, there is no other go for the appellant
except to file a civil suit in O.S.No.744 of 2014 on the file of the I Assistant
City Civil Court Judge, Chennai and that there is no express provision in
the Rules and Regulations dated 28.04.2003 ousting the Civil Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
jurisdiction and therefore, the Civil Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is
legally maintainable. The learned counsel further referred to Rule 33 of the
Rules framed and issued on 28.04.2003 regulating the terms and conditions
of service of civilian employees of URC paid out of Non-Public Fund
which reads as follows:
''Any legal dispute arising between the employee and employer will
be submitted to jurisdiction of local courts.''
12.A perusal of the aforesaid rules would clearly establish that any
legal dispute arising between the appellant/plaintiff and
respondents/defendants, i.e., employee and employer respectively, the
Competent Court having jurisdiction would be the local Civil Courts,
normally the Civil Court vested with the territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction.
13.In Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs. State of Tirupura, reported in
AIR 1999 SC 294, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:
'' 5... Indeed, it is appropriate to relegate a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
person to exhaust Departmental remedies when he
approaches the Court without exhausting
Departmental remedies under the Service Rules but to
hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction while
hearing a second appeal, after the mattar has been
litigated in Civil Courts for more than five years was,
to say the least, not proper. The learned single Judge
ought to have decided the case on its own merits and
not made a short cut of it. The appellant could not
have been non-suited on the ground that he had failed
to take recourse
to proceedings under the C.C.5 (C.C and A) Rules
1965 against the order of dismissal."
In the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
held that as a matter of fact, it was appeared to them
that the single Judge had failed to exercise the
jurisdiction, vested with him, while non suiting the
appellant. On the aforesaid grounds, it was held as
appropriate to allow the appeal, setting aside the order
of the learned single Judge and remit the mattes back
to the High Court for fresh decision of the regular
Second Appeal and the cross-objections on their own
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
merits. It has been categorically held by the Threes
Judge Bench of the Apex Court that the civil Court is
vested with the jurisdiction, accordingly, the High
Court has to dispose the second appeal on merits. The
aforesaid decision is directly applicable to the present
second appeals.
21. In Dharma Nand vs. Union of India, reported in
2004 SCC (L&S) 1034, relying on Union of India vs.
M.Aslam, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 720, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that canteen employees under
the defence ministry were to be treated an Government
servants.
14. In the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to above, this Court is of the view that the suit filed by the
respondents are maintainable in law and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to
decide the same, according to law and the plea of the respondent that the
civil court has got no jurisdiction is not sustainable in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
15.According to the appellant/ plaintiff, he was appointed to the post
of Storekeeper and ADLR at Unit Run Canteen Embarkation Headquarters,
Chennai, by order dated 27.03.2007 and the scale of pay was fixed at
Rs.4,000/- with effect from 01.04.2007. While so, a show cause notice
dated 05.07.2013 was issued and the plaintiff was called upon by the
defendant to give explanation as to why the plaintiff was using the smart
card illegally for purchase of grocery rather than returning the smart card to
OIC URC or Canteen Manager or Accounts office finding that the smart
card was used by one Kamalakannan of Rail Branch of Embarkation
Headquarters, Chennai and his card was lost during December 2011. For the
said show cause notice dated 05.07.2013 the plaintiff has given a suitable
reply. While so, the defendant issued another show cause notice on
03.10.2013 whereby it was stated that the Court of Inquiry was conducted
and consequent to the findings of the Court of Inquiry it was found that on
05.07.2013 the plaintiff had been using the lost smart card of Kamala
Kannan of Rail Branch, Embarkation Headquarters, Chennai and the
plaintiff was called upon to explain in writing as to why disciplinary action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
should not be initiated and the services of the plaintiff should not be
terminated with immediate effect. On receipt of the said show cause notice
the plaintiff gave an explanation on 11.10.2013 denying the allegations
levelled against the plaintiff and also explained the facts and circumstances
of the case in which the smart card was involved. In spite of the explanation
offered by the plaintiff, no charges were framed against the plaintiff nor any
disciplinary action was initiated and he was not found guilty of any
misconduct. However, quite contrary to the mandatory provisions of the
rules and regulations regulating the terms and conditions of Canteen
Services dated 28.04.2003 the plaintiff was terminated from service as
storekeeper from the 1st defendant's establishment and aggrieved against
the same, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for declaration that the order
dated 30.10.2013 served on the plaintiff on 01.11.2013 is illegal and non est
in law. It is stated that in the impugned termination order dated 30.10.2013
which is punitive in nature, the defendant has referred to the letters dated
14.09.2001 and 28.04.2003 of Army Headquarters. Whereas, the letter dated
14.09.2001 is not in operation as the same had been superseded and that the
impugned order of termination is in violation of the mandatory provisions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
of Rules and Regulations dated 28.04.2003 besides being punitive in nature
and content and Rules and Regulations do not provide for any termination
and no disciplinary action was initiated against the plaintiff and he was not
found guilty of any misconduct and therefore the order of termination
issued against the plaintiff is illegal and against law and most untenable and
as such the plaintiff is entitled to be reinstated into service with all
consequential service benefits. The order of termination dated 30.10.2013
has been malafidely and arbitrarily issued.
16.It is not in dispute that the respondents/defendants were
empowered to take appropriate disciplinary action against the
appellant/plaintiff, in case of proved misconduct, including
removal/dismissal of the employee from service. But, it is mandatory on the
part of the respondents/defendants to follow the procedures as per the terms
and conditions of the service of the employees, otherwise it would be an
arbitrary action, legally not sustainable. Paragraph No.41 of the terms and
conditions of service, for taking action dealing with case of misconduct,
reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
41. Before awarding to an employee any of the
punishments mentioned in para 30-C and 39, the
following procedure shall be followed by the disciplinary
authority:
a) The employee is to be served with a charge
sheet, clearly stating the imputation of misconduct
against him and calling upon him to show CAUSE as to
why one or more of the punishments included in those
guidelines should not be awarded to him.
b) The reply to the charge sheet, if any, is to be
duly considered by the disciplinary authority.
c) If the employee so desires, he is to be heard in
person and is also to be allowed to cross examine
witness(es) against him or procedure witnesses in his
defence. The disciplinary procedure is laid down in
Appendix "B".
17.Further, if there is any adverse order, the affected employee is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
entitled to prefer appeal. The appellate authority may either suo moto or on
appeal from an individual, review any order of the disciplinary authority
and on such review, pass any order or issue any direction it deems fit on the
facts and circumstance of the case. The appellate authority shall be the
authority superior in the chain of command.
18.In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that charge
memo was issued on the appellant/plaintiff. There is no material on record
to show that explanation was called for and opportunity was given to the
appellant/plaintiff. Since, the repondents/defendants remained ex-parte, the
appellant/plaintiff had no opportunity to cross examine any witness of the
respondents/defendants in this regard. Moreover, it is not established that
the respondents/defendants have followed the procedures contemplated
under the rules for terminating the appellant/plaintiff. The
respondents/defendants ought to have issued charge memo, calling for
explanation and if the explanation is not satisfactory, after framing of
charges, enquiry ought to have been conducted in accordance with law by
following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is nothing on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
record to show that the respondents/defendants have followed the
mandatory procedures.
19.In Dharma Nan vs. Union of India, reported in 2004 SCC (I & S)
1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the termination of the Canteen
employees were illegal, on the ground that the mandatory procedures were
not followed by the appropriate authority and the impugned order was
violative of principles of natural justice.
20.The First appellate Court came to the conclusion and dismissed
the suit against the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff has clearly
denied the allegations levelled against him. Inspite of his denial the
respondents/defendants have issued the notice of termination, which is
illegal. There is nothing on record to show that enquiry was conducted and
in pursuant to the enquiry, the punitive termination order was issued on
30.10.2013. On perusal of the rules, it is seen that while laying procedure
for dealing with the case of misconduct it is provided that the delinquent
shall be served with the charge sheet clearly stating that the details of mis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
conduct against him. But in this case it is not made clear whether any
charge sheet is served upon the delinquent and further clause "C" of Rule
24 lays down "if the employee so desires, he is to be heard in person and is
also to be allowed to cross examine witness or witnesses against him or
produce witnesses in his defence" and further perusal shows that the
disciplinary procedure is laid down for "dismissal/ discharge'' as described
in Appendix "B" wherein also holding of any inquiry is made mandatory.
But in this case though on the side of the appellant it is alleged that no
enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity was given to the
appellant/plaintiff to state his defence, the respondents 1 and 2 have not
taken any care to appear before the trial court and refute stating that the
appellant was given an opportunity by holding an enquiry to defend his
case. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any denial by the
respondents/defendants that, it is to be presumed that no opportunity was
given to the appellant/plaintiff to defend his case, which is mandatory one
as laid down under the rules and regulations of service of Civilian
Employees of Unit Run Canteen paid out of non public fund. So as
discussed above, it is decided that the above procedural lapse is fatal to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
proceedings and against the law and procedure laid down under rules and
regulations governing the service of Civilian Employees of Unit Run
Canteen paid out of non public fund. The respondents/defendants have
failed to conduct any enquiry into the matter as contemplated under the
mandatory provisions of rules governing for termination of service of the
appellant/plaintiff who was permanently employed in time scale of pay in
the respondent's/defendant's Unit Run Service Canteen, which is a violation
of principles of natural justice and consequently the appellant/plaintiff is
entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential service benefits.
There is no reason whatsoever for the respondents/defendants to fail to
follow the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the
appellant/plaintiff and the failure to adopt legal procedure contemplated
under the rules governing the service conditions of the appellant/plaintiff
tells on the validity of the order of termination.
21.Hence, the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit filed by the
appellant /plaintiff without considering the same on merits. Hence, the
judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
second appeal in S.A.No.1251 of 2019 is allowed without cost and the suit
in O.S.No.744/2014 is decreed. The respondents / defendants are directed to
reinstate the appellant / plaintiff into service with benefits like seniority, pay
protection with arrears of salary and allowances from 30.10.2013.
10.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
vsn
To
1. The XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai,
2. The I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
Pre- delivery judgment made in
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:02 pm )
