1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/8/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)Nos.9122, 9123 and 5616 of 2011 1. R. Palanichamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9122/2011 2. K.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9123/2011 3. P. Jeya ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.5616/2011 Vs 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Trichy Trichy. ..1sst Respondent in all Writ Petitions 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Zone Corporation of Trichy, Trichy ..2nd Respondent in WP.No.9122/2011 3.The Assistant Commissioner Cum Enquiry Officer, Ariyamangalam Zone Corporation of Trichy Trichy ..2nd Respondent in WP.No.9123/2011 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Ponmalai Zone, Corporation of Trichy, Trichy ..2nd Respondent in WP.No.5616/2011 Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writs of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7171/2010/H1/ARIYA and Na.Ka.No.1135/09H1/Pon dated 25/7/2011, 4/8/2011 and 6/4/2011 respectively quash the same. For petitioners ... Mr.Sivabalan for Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh in all the Petitions For respondents ...Mr.J.Parekh Kumar in all the Petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 C O M M O N O R D E R Pleadings and materials on record disclose that, when the removal of the petitioners, were challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.40518 of 2002, on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Sub-rule 2 to Rule 8 of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1986 were not followed, this Court, while setting aside the orders of removal and at paragraph Nos.4 and 5, has held as follows:- "4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, sub- Rule 2 to Rule 9 of the Rules referred to above has to be followed before the extreme punishment of dismissal is given. There is no doubt that in this case, the grounds on which the proposed action was intended to be taken were not reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges under the provision referred to above. In other words, passing of the order of removal should be preceded by a validly instituted departmental enquiry and only on the basis of the final decision arrived at in the departmental enquiry, the final orders have to be passed. 5. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to set aside the order challenged in these writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. However, the liberty of the respondents in each case is reserved to take action against the petitioner in each case, if they chooses to do so, in accordance with the procedure referred to above. Since the order of removal is set aside, should be deemed to be in service. However, in this regard, the petitioner in each case is directed to give a representation to the respondent, who on receipt of the same, shall pass orders thereon within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such representation." 2. Pursuant to the above said orders, the respondents seemed to have called the petitioners for enquiry and it is the case of the petitioners that without furnishing the documents requested by them, the Corporation completed the enquiry proceedings and an ex parte report dated 8/9/2004 was submitted. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(MD) Nos.822 of 2005 batch and by a common order dated 27/11/2008, this Court allowed the writ petitions and at paragraph 5, it was observed as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed, the respective Enquiry Officer's Reports are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer is directed to furnish copies of all the documents in the hands of the Enquiry Officer or the respondents, for which, the requests have been made by the petitioners. After furnishing the copies of all such documents, the Enquiry Officer shall hold necessary enquiry, afford sufficient opportunity and submit a fresh report in each case. It is also made clear that sufficient opportunity to the delinquents to examine the witnesses shall also be given by the Enquiry Officer. In any event, the Enquiry Officer is directed to complete the enquiry and submit reports within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the enquiry. No costs." 3. Again, the petitioners have challenged the enquiry notices by way of W.P.(MD) Nos.2917 of 2009 batch and this Court observing that filing of the above writ petitions as abuse of process of the Court, by a common order dated 19/11/2010, dismissed the writ petitions and at paragraph Nos.3,4, 5 and 6, this Court has observed as follows:- "3. Inspite of this Court directing them to co-operate with the enquiry and complete the enquiry, the petitioners have filed application after application seeking for time extension on the ground that they should produce necessary documents for the enquiry and since the documents were in the custody of their lawyer, they asked for further time. But the second respondent due to the time constrain issued by this Court stated that though sufficient time was given, they have not produced the documents and they have asked to appear for enquiry on 09.04.2009. It is challenging the enquiry notice dated 02.04.2009, the third round of litigation is brought to this Court. 4. W.P.Nos.5991 to 5994 of 2010 were admitted on 28.04.2010 and was directed to be posted along with W.P.Nos.2917 & 2918 of 2009. Hence, all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 these writ petitions have grouped together and common order is passed. Pending the writ petitions, this Court has granted only notice. The contentions raised by the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions was that earlier specific directions were given to conduct enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and because of the their case papers were entrusted with the Advocate at Trichy and there was a communication gap, they can not get on with the case. 5. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions, as already in the earlier batch of writ petitions by a common order dated 27.11.2008, this Court directed the authorities to hold enquiry after giving sufficient opportunity and also further opportunity to the petitioners to examine their witnesses. There was a time constraint to complete the enquiry and the petitioners were directed to co-operate with the early disposal of the enquiry." 4. Though, this Court at para No.4 of the common judgment made in W.P.(MD) No.2917 of 2009 batch dated 19/11/2010 has held that, the above batch of writ petitions were of a clear abuse of process of law, again, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions on the ground, contending inter alia, that the directions given by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.822 of 2005 batch dated 27/11/2008, have not been complied with and that therefore, they have sent a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Zone, Corporation of Trichy, Trichy/second respondent herein under the Right to Information Act, for not furnishing the documents required. Thus, it is evident from the sequence of events that, every time, when notices are issued by the Enquiry Officer, citing one reason or the other, the petitioners have approached this Court and have stalled the enquiry proceedings, though, by a common order dated 27/11/2008, in W.P.(MD) No.1385 of 2005 batch etc., this Court has directed the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made in the above writ petitions. It could be further seen that in the third round of litigation, viz., W.P. (MD) Nos.2917 of 2010 batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have raised a new ground to stall the enquiry proceedings stating that, necessary documents were in the custody of their Lawyer and that the respondents could not produce the documents called for. When the said argument had already been rejected in the third round of litigation and though this Court has observed that the third round of litigation itself if an abuse of process of law, the petitioners are emboldened to approach this Court by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 way of fourth round of litigation, raising the very same contentions, that they were not provided with documents. Thus, it is evident from the above, the only objective of the writ petitioners is to somehow protract the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them, for securing employment on compassionate grounds, by suppressing certain facts. There is no bonafide, in the action of the petitioners, in approaching this Court repeatedly, on the very same grounds, as and when notices are issued, to complete the enquiry, as directed by this Court. There are no merits in the writ petitions and accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. 5. After the passing of the orders, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would appear before the Enquiry Officer, as directed earlier and co-operate in the enquiry proceedings. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and taking note of the observations made by this Court and of the fact that the petitioners have approached this Court for the fourth time, the Enquiry Officer, shall complete the enquiry as directed earlier and in the event of any adverse finding, the appointing/disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners as per the Rules. If for any reason, the petitioners are aggrieved over the manner in which the enquiry is conducted, it is open to them to challenge the same, in the manner known to law, after the passing of final orders. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Trichy, Trichy. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Ariyamangalam Zone Corporation of Trichy, Trichy. 3.The Assistant Commissioner Cum Enquiry Officer, Ariyamangalam Zone Corporation of Trichy, Trichy 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Ponmalai Zone, Corporation of Trichy, Trichy +Three Ccs to Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh, Advocate, SR.Nos.28044,28047,28045 +One Cc to Mr.P.Srinivas , Advocate, SR.No.28182 mvs rl/9c – 19.8.2011 W.P.(MD) No.9122, 9123 and 5616 of 2011 17/8/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/