1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 05..04..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.386 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1. The General Manager, (Administration), Head Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No.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 - 10. : Appellants/Respondents Vs. Mr. S. Nagarajan, S/o. S. Shanmugasundaram, Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., C/o. Regional Office, TNCSC Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram. : Respondent/Petitioner 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.2822 of 2006. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2822 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling of the records from the file of the 1st Respondent pertaining to his impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.G7/112096/2003-(2) dated 24.06.2004 and consequential order in Se.Mu.Order No.AD2/112481/2004 dated 24.01.2005 of the second respondent respectively and quash the same. 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 A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J.) As against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.2822 of 2006, the Government has preferred this Writ Appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent herein is working as a Superintendent in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and the said Corporation is running liquor shops under the name and style of "Amudham Wine Shop" in Ramanathapuram District. Being the Superintendent, it is the duty of the respondent herein to supervise the Shop Nos.90, 94, 98 and 101 at Ramanathapuram. On 02.09.2003, when the Vigilance Cell of the said Corporation had made a surprise visit to Shop Nos.90, 94, 98 and 101 at Ramanathapuram, it was found that some of the items were sold by the respondent in higher price than that of the fixed price. On that basis, enquiry has been ordered and the enquiry has been conducted. On 12.02.2004, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a Report holding that the charges against the respondent were not proved. However, deviating from the Report of the Enquiry Officer, the first appellant herein by proceedings dated 24.06.2004 imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect. As against the said order, the respondent herein preferred an Appeal. The second appellant herein, by proceedings dated 24.01.2005 while confirming the order of the first appellant herein, dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the respondent herein has filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that the person, who gave statement should have been examined and copies of the statements of the workers in the said shop should have been furnished to the respondent herein well in advance before the enquiry. Hence, this Court set aside the impugned orders of the appellants herein and allowed the writ petition. As against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. In the above said backdrop, this writ appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is that the respondent herein has sold some of the items on higher price than that of the fixed price, which has been noticed by the Vigilance Cell of the Corporation and the respondent caught red handed. Charges have been framed against the respondent and enquiry was conducted and he was imposed with the punishment. Therefore, the Writ Appeal has to be allowed by confirming the orders of the appellants herein. 4. Having perused the documents filed in support of this Writ Appeal and having heard the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, it is seen that no statement has been obtained from the persons to whom the respondent allegedly sold some of the items on higher price than that of the fixed price. Further, the charges against the respondent viz., Charge No.1 to Charge No.8 are similar in nature. In view of the fact that no statement has been obtained from any individual and copies of the statements of the workers in the said shop have not been furnished to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the respondent, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, 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 closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The General Manager, (Administration), Head Office, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No.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 - 10. W.A.(MD)No.386 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 05.04.2011 Dpn/- NSV/21.4.11/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/