IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.07.2008 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.5670 of 1999 S.Maran ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. 2. Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.M3/4802/97 dated 27.10.1997 and the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings G1/106780/97 dated 07.01.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential benefits. For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondents :: Mr.V.Selvanayagam (R1&R2) O R D E R The petitioner who was working as an Assistant under the second respondent Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.10.1997 removing him from service and confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 07.01.1999. 2. The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Corporation as a helper on 10.01.1975, thereafter was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1979 and as an Assistant in 1984. The petitioner who originally worked at Kumbakonam was posted to Tanjore and subsequent to his joining the station, he claimed that he became the General Secretary of the Trade Union to which he belonged, which necessitated him to leave the station often for union work. He started taking several leave without informing the officers and merely intimating about his absence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner from 09.10.1995 to 15.12.1995 took medical leave and earned leave, from 16.12.1995 to 10.03.1996, he was kept under compulsory wait seeking for posting in some other station. Again from 11.03.1996 to 31.08.1996, he took earned leave. From 01.09.1996 to 14.10.1997, he sought for employment and kept under compulsory wait. The department taking note of the frequent absence of the petitioner, especially for the period from October 1995 to October 1997 he has taken 736 days leave without permission in a period of two years, framed a charge against him. The petitioner informed the respondent that he being the Union leader, requires his absence many times. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted and the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Taking note of the unauthorised absence of the petitioner continuously, he was removed from service by the order dated 27.10.1997 by the second respondent. As against the said order, he had filed an appeal on 04.11.1997. The said appeal was also dismissed by the first respondent by the order dated 07.01.199. Thus, he is before this Court. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that he has been making request to the respondent, being the State General Secretary of the Union to be stationed at Head quarters so that he can have frequent meeting with the officials and when that is not forthcoming, he was forced to take leave. It was also stated by him that his representation to be posted at Chennai was not considered and he has been victimised, being an office bearer of a trade Union, having affiliation to a particular political party. 4. His explanation provided in the affidavit and a similar stand taken before the respondent cannot stand scrutiny of law. A trade Union leader has no right to act differently than that of other workman. When there are service rules, with reference to leave have been specifically provided for, he cannot stand on a higher pedestal than the other workman with a defence that he was forced to take leave because of union work. This kind of defence taken by the petitioner will have no sympathy from any forum including form this Court. When a charge was framed specifically and the petitioner does not have any specific defence and he has been imposed with the punishment of removal and the appellate authority also having rejected the same, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the said punishment in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment in the case of L & T KOMATSU LTD., VS. N.UDAYAKUMAR reported in 2008 (1) SCC 224 held that unauthorised absence must be viewed seriously and even labour Court having power under Section 11A cannot invoke the power to interfere with the punishment. In the light of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rg To 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. 2. Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 1 cc To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.36517. 1 cc To Mr.V.Selvanaayagam, Advocate, SR.35824. W.P.No.5670 of 1999 SP(CO) RVL 16.07.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/