1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 20..04..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.415 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1. The General Manager, (Administration), Head Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10. 2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Head Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. ..... Appellants /Respondents - Vs - M. Tajudeen, S/o. S. Mohamed Kasim, Superintendent (Retd), C/o. Regional Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram. ......Respondent / Petitioners Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.11.2010 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD)No.2829 of 2006. Writ petitioner is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the first respondent pertaining to their impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.G7/112096/2003-(1) dated 24.06.2004 and Se.mu.Order No.AD2/109899/2004, dated 24.01.2005 of the second respondent respectively and quash the same as illegal arbitrary, biased unconstitutional and against natural justice. For Appellants :: Mr. R. Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 25.11.2010 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD)No.2829 of 2006. 2. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, the respondent herein was working as a Superintendent in the appellant / Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Certain allegations have been levelled against him for the alleged commission and omission. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer has submitted a Report with a finding that the charges against the delinquent have not been proved. However, the punishing authority differed from the Enquiry Officer's Report and issued a show cause notice and subsequently, by an order dated 24.06.2004, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect. As against the said order, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the second appellant herein, who by an order dated 24.01.2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment. As against the said order, the respondent herein has preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.2829 of 2006 and the same was allowed by the order dated 25.11.2010. Aggrieved over the same, the official respondents in the writ petition have preferred this Writ Appeal. 3. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, basing on the statement given by the Salesman that liquor bottles have been sold at a higher rate, the impugned order of punishment has been imposed. According to him, when it is an admitted fact that the liquor bottles have been sold at the higher price, the charge against the respondent herein stands proved, consequently, the question of interfering with the order passed, by which the punishment was imposed, does not arise at all. However, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly admits that those statements were recorded at the back of the respondent herein and apart from this, copies of those statements were not even furnished to the respondent herein. It is an admitted fact that relying on those statements only, the punishment has been imposed, which will go to show that the impugned order has been passed without providing any reasonable opportunity to the respondent herein. When an order has been passed without even providing reasonable opportunity to a delinquent, certainly that order cannot be allowed to stand. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader requested that if the matter is remitted, they will conduct the enquiry again after providing reasonable opportunity to the respondent herein and pass final orders. As far as this request of the learned Special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Government Pleader is concerned, it cannot be now accepted for the reason that actually the incident took place in the year 2003 and now, we are in 2011. Already, the respondent herein had undergone the ordeal and after a period of eight years, for no fault of him, but for the fault of the appellants herein, he cannot be again forced to face the ordeal of Trial. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P (MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (LA ) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1. The General Manager,(Administration), Head Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10. 2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Head Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No.12, Thambusamy Road,Kilpauk, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Advocate, Sr.No. 14263 W.A.(MD)No.415 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 dpn/- SMA/14.06.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/