V.Naganathan v. The Managing Director

ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in Se.Mu.Aa.No.AD2/66069/2014 dated 29.06.2015 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Se.Mu.Anai.No. AD7/5493/12(4) dated 17.06.2014.

¶2The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TNCSC') decided in the year 2010-2011 to procure paddy from the farmers on war-footing. For the purpose of bagging the paddy so procured, it was directed by the TNCSC to purchase gunny bags from Co-operative Societies at the rate of Rs.16/- per bag. It was specifically directed that the bags so procured must be "sound and serviceable" and not "as is where is" basis. The third respondent Regional Manager had issued series of orders directing payment for procurement of these bags to the Assistant Quality Inspector. Such direction was issued on the basis of the instructions given by the first respondent.

¶3During the course of procurement by the Ramanathapuram Region, it came to the knowledge of the first respondent that some irregularities had been committed. Therefore, it decided to constitute a fact finding committee consisting of the following officers:

(i) Senior Manager (Audit), Chennai

(ii) Senior Manager (Labour), Chennai

(iii) Deputy Manager, Madurai and

(iv) Assistant Manager, Virudhunagar. The fact finding committee found that there were irregularities in the procurement and therefore, recommended for appropriate action to be initiated by the first respondent.

¶4On the basis of the report of the fact finding committee, the Managing Director, who is the appointing officer, issued a charge memo dated 03.07.2012 to the writ petitioner.

¶5The following charges were framed against the petitioner: "Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.1 jdpaH fz;fhzpg;ghsH> thzpg gphpT vd;w nghWg;ghd gjtpapy; ,Ue;Jnfhz;L> fhyp Nfhzpg;igfs; nfhs;Kjy; nra;Ak;NghJ> fld; mbg;gilapy; nfhs;Kjy; nra;J mjd; gpwF nfhs;Kjy; nra;ag;gl;l fhyp Nfhzpg;igfSf;fhd

njhifapid

fhNrhiyahf toq;fhky;> fof tpjpKiwfis kPwp &.1>25>00>000/-ia jpU vk;.jHkuh[; cjtp ju Ma;thsUf;F Kd;gzk; toq;f> jdJ caH mYtyUf;F Fwpg;G toq;fp Kiwaw;w tifapy; Rayhgj;jpw;fhf fhyp Nfhzpg;igfs; nfhs;Kjy; nra;a mDkjp toq;fpaJ. Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.2 jdpaH fz;fhzpg;ghsH> thzpg gphpT vd;w nghWg;ghd gjtpapy; ,Ue;Jnfhz;L> fhyp Nfhzpg;igfs; nfhs;Kjy; nra;Ak;NghJ kz;ly mstpy; kz;ly fzf;F gphpT jiytH> juf;fl;Lg;ghL gphpT jiytH> NkyhsH (epHthfk;)/Jiz kz;ly NkyhsH MfpNahiu nfhz;L

FOit

epHzak;

nra;J

$l;LwT rq;fj;jplkpUe;J fhyp Nfhzpigfis nfhs;Kjy; nra;a W.P.(Mi).No.20929oofo2015 toq;fpa jiyik mYtyf tpjpKiwfis jdJ caH mYtyUf;F njhptpf;fhkYk;> tpjpKiwfis kPwp Kd;gzk; toq;f jdJ caH mYtyHfSf;F Fwpg;G toq;fp> fhyp Nfhzpg;igfs; nfhs;Kjy; nra;a mDkjpj;jpd; %yk;> jiyik mYtyf tpjpKiwfis kPwp> jdpegUld; $l;L NrHe;J fhyp Nfhzpg;igfis ntspre;ijapy; nfhs;Kjy; nra;J> njhlf;f Ntshz;ik $lL; wT rq;f gl;baypl;L f[hd;ehaf; gde;Jk;G cw;gj;jpahsH $lL; wT rq;fj;jpypUe;J nfhs;Kjy; nra;ag;gl;ljhf Nghyp gl;bay; jahhpj;J KiwNfLfs; elf;f cle;ijahf ,Ue;Js;shH. Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.3 jdpaH fz;fhzpgg; hsH> thzpg gphpT vd;w nghWg;ghd gjtpapy; ,Ue;Jf; nfhz;L ,izg;gjpthsH ,uhkehjGuk; jiyikapyhd ,uhkehjGuk; khtl;l fhyp rhf;F tpiy epHzaf; FOthy; 50 fpNyh nfhs;ssT nfhz;l fhyp rhf;F xd;Wf;F Mf];L 2010f;F 9.60 fhRk;> nrg;lk;gH 2010f;F &.9.75 fhRk; mf;NlhgH 2010f;F 9.90 fhRk; kw;Wk; etk;gH 2010f;F & 10.00 vd tpiy epHzak; nra;jpUe;Jk; mt;tpiyapy; $l;LwT rq;fq;fsplkpUe;J nfhs;Kjy; nra;ahky; tpjpKiwfis kPwp ntspr;re;ijapy; fhyp Nfhzpg;ig xd;Wf;F U.16.00 tPjk; 7>78>150 fhyp Nfhzpg;igfs; ntspr;re;ijapy; nfhs;Kjy; nra;ag;gl;lij mDkjpj;jjpd; %yk; fofj;jpw;F &. 48>37>875 ,ogG; Vw;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shH. Pageo5oofo14 Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.4 jdpaH fz;fhzpg;ghsH> thzpg gphpT vd;w nghWg;ghd gjtpapy; ,Ue;Jnfhz;L> jpU MH.jHkuh[;> cjtp ju

Ma;thsH> ntspr;re;ijapy;

fhyp Nfhzpg;igfis nfhs;Kjy; nra;J> Kjy; gl;baiy rkHg;gpf;Fk;NghJ> jdpaUf;F chpa topKiwfis njhptpj;J> $l;LwT rq;fk; %yk; nfhs;Kjy; nra;a mwpTWj;jhky;> jdpaH ntspr;re;ijapy; 7>30>250 fhyp Nfhzpg;igfs;

nfhs;Kjy;

nra;a

njhlHe;J mDkjpj;jjpd; %yk; thl; thpAld; NrHj;J t#y; nra;ag;gl;l njhifahd &.1>16>84>000/- ,jpy; 4% thl; thp njhif &.4>47>360 kw;Wk; 47>900 NfhzpfSk; 4% thl; thp jdpNa t#y; nra;j njhif &.30>656/- Mf &.4>98>016 muR thp gzj;ij fofj;jplkpUe;J t#y; nra;J muR fzf;fpy; nrYj;jhky; ifahly; nra;J KiwNfL Ghpe;jJ murplkpUe;J fofj;jpw;F mtg;ngaH Vw;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;jJ. Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;.5 jdpaH fz;fhzpg;ghsH> thzpg gphpT vd;w nghWg;ghd gjtpapy; ,Ue;Jnfhz;L> jdJ gjtpia J\;gpuNahfk; nra;J> fof tpjpKiwfis kPwp nray;gl;L> fofj;jpw;F mtg;ngaH Vw;gLk; tifapy; ele;Jnfhz;lJ."

¶6On the basis of the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted by the Senior Manager (Labour), Chennai and he submitted a report to the first respondent. The enquiry was conducted on 11.12.2012 and 12.12.2012. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Senior Manager submitted his enquiry report on 24.12.2012 and the copy of the enquiry report was also given to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report. On perusal of the reply, since it was not satisfactory, the second respondent passed an order on

17.06.2014. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 18.08.2014. The first respondent dismissed the appeal on 29.06.2015. Aggrieved by these orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶7Heard Mr.L.Shaji Chellan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.G.Mohankumar, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

¶8Mr.L.Shaji Chellan, learned counsel for the petitioner would seek interference of the orders of the respondents on the following grounds:

i) That the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry on the charges, which were framed, was a member of the fact finding committee, which submitted its report on 27.02.2012 and therefore, there is real likelihood of bias;

ii) That the position that the petitioner occupied was that of a Superitendent, who had to obey the directions of the respondents 1 to 3 and was not a decision making authority; and

iii) That the position that the petitioner occupied and the punishment that has been imposed is disproportionate.

¶9The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third respondent would raise a preliminary objection that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which has already been analysed by the second respondent and the first respondent as Original and Appellate Authority. He would state that there was conspiracy amongst the employees of the third respondent and therefore, every employee, who was involved in the malversation of funds of the TNCSC should be visited with punishment. He would state that the impugned order does not require interference and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶10I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and have gone through the records.

¶11Taking up the first plea of Mr.L.Shaji Chellan that there is a real likelihood of bias, I have to point out that the writ petitioner did not raise this objection at the time of the enquiry conducted by Mr.R.Sundaravadivelu, Senior Manager (Labour), Chennai. In fact, the petitioner voluntarily participated in the said enquiry, which was held on

11.12.2012 and 12.12.2012. He did not raise this objection when the copy of the enquiry report dated 24.12.2012 was given to him. He did not raise this objection at the time when he filed his objections to the enquiry report to the second respondent. This objection seems to have been taken only before the first respondent. It is not as if the petitioner was not aware about the identity of Mr.R.Sundaravadivelu, as a member of the fact finding committee, as well as the said person acting as the Enquiry Officer. The fact that the copy of the preliminary report was not given to the writ petitioner was raised by him in his objections dated 07.02.2013. Immediately, on receipt of the representation dated 07.02.2013, by proceedings dated

02.04.2013, a copy of the preliminary report was given to the writ petitioner. Having received the copy in April 2013, not even a little finger was raised against the same, till an appeal was presented on 18.08.2014.

¶12The following two aspects come out from the discussion in the aforesaid paragraph:

(i) The petitioner had waived his right in alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer and

(ii) A preliminary enquiry was conducted to find out if any misdemeanour had taken place in the procurement of the gunny bags. The enquiry had directed himself with respect to the specific charges that had been placed. There is an ocean of difference between the enquiry conducted by the first respondent to find out if any mistakes or misdemeanours had taken place at the time of procurement and the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, which is on a specific charge and on a totally different complaint. Therefore, on both these grounds, I am not convinced with the first argument of Mr.L.Shaji Chellan. I hold that the fact that Mr.R.Sundaravadivelu was the Enquiry Officer as well as a member of the fact finding committee is not vitiated by bias.

¶13Insofar as the second point is concerned, the writ petitioner was working in the cadre of Superintendent in the office of the third respondent. He was posted in B5 Business Section, which was tasked with the duty to check the purchase of gunny bags. The fact that payment had been made by cash and the fact that the procurement by the Assistant Quality Inspector were contrary to the directions given by the first and second respondents, should be within the knowledge of the writ petitioner, Mr.V.Naganathan.

¶14The Enquiry Officer had gone into the fact that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- had been withheld towards VAT payment, but had not been paid insofar as the Co-operative Society is concerned and also the fact that the Co-operative Society did not also have the TIN number has been enquired into in detail. When such is the circumstance, as a person holding a responsible position of the Superintendent of Business Section, the writ petitioner ought to have rectified the issue and should not have permitted the state of things to exist.

¶15In fact, I am of the view that the respondents have taken a lenient view and imposed only a punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect and not have inflicted the petitioner with a major punishment as imposed on the Regional Manager. The nature of the work of a Superintendent is to supervise the work and to ensure that the guidelines and directions given by the superiors are strictly complied with. Unfortunately, the said work has not been carried out by the writ petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the nature of work executed by the writ petitioner and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶16Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

09.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm To

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

2.The General Manager (Administration), Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

3.The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Master Plan Complex, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District - 625 503. V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J. Lm

09.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 and 3 of 2015 V.Naganathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. 2.The General Manager (Administration), Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. 3.The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Master Plan Complex, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District - 625 503. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent in Se.Mu.Aa.No. AD2/66069/2014 dated 29.06.2015 and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Se.Mu.Anai.No.AD7/5493/12(4) dated 17.06.2014, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan For R-1 & R-2 : No appearance For R-3 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.G.Mohan Kumar Standing Counsel