Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. ... vs K. Meerabai

Meanwhile, Departmental Enquiry was instituted against the respondent herein in respect of the aforementioned four charges. After a full-fledged enquiry in which the respondent fully participated, the Enquiry Officer, vide his Enquiry Report dated 11.06.1991, recorded his conclusions based on the evidence on record holding (1) that charge No.1 is not proved; (2) that charge No.2 is partly proved; (3) that charge No.3 is not proved and (4) that charge No.4 is partly proved. On 14.06.1991, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent as well as to other 11 charged officers. They were called upon to submit their explanations as to the findings contained in the Enquiry Report which was also enclosed with the show-cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority, vide his order dated 28.11.1991, dismissed the respondent herein from service with immediate effect without prejudice to the recovery proceedings to be initiated against her, while further directing that the period of suspension with effect from 01.02.1983 till the date of the order of dismissal would be treated as a period of suspension. On 11.12.1991, the High Court disposed of the writ petition No. 1337 of 1984 and quashed the order of suspension. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991, the respondent preferred a Departmental Appeal to the Joint Managing Director, the Appellate Authority. Vide common show-cause notice dated 27.01.1992, the Disciplinary Authority intimated the official proposal to recover the loss suffered by the Corporation on account of the malpractices of the charged officers proportionately at 5% of the total value of the loss with interest, while calling upon the charged officers including the respondent herein to show-cause within 15 days from the receipt of the notice why the said amount should not be recovered from the charged officers. Meanwhile, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.15554 of 1992 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second appellant herein to pay to the respondent-writ petitioner salary and other benefits due to her for the period from 01.01.1983 (date of suspension) to 28.11.1991 (date of dismissal). Vide order dated 13.11.1992, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Corporation to consider the representation of the respondent dated 22.01.1992 on merits and pass orders according to law thereon within a period of 3 months from that date. In compliance with the directions contained in the High Court's order disposing of the respondent's writ petition No. 1337 of 1984, the Disciplinary Authority ordered that the period of suspension of the respondent with effect from 01.02.1983 till 28.11.1991 be treated as the period of duty, while further ordering payment to the respondent of the arrears of salary etc. after adjustment of the subsistence allowance already paid to her during the period of her suspension. Vide order dated 21.09.1993, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order directing recovery from the respondent the proportionate amount of the principal loss in the sum of Rs.34,436.85 without any interest, while categorically holding that the respondent's responsibility in receipt of mis-appropriation could not at all be brushed aside and that her explanation was found not acceptable. On 05.10.1993, the respondent again moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No. 18502 of 1993 praying for quashing the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991. The Appellate Aauthority, vide his order dated 16.06.1994, dismissed the respondent's appeal after exhaustively dealing with her submissions in the light of the documentary evidence on record. Being aggrieved by the Appellate Order, dismissing her Departmental Appeal, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.14652 of 1994 challenging the correctness of the aforementioned order. In the meanwhile, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai acquitted the respondent herein of the charges under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. on 27.09.2000. Both the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein (writ petition No. 18502 of 1993 challenging the order of dismissal and writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 challenging the Appellate Authority's Order dismissing her Departmental Appeal) came up before the learned single Judge of the High Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition No. 18502 of 1993 and quashed the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 directing her reinstatement with all consequential benefits, while also allowing the writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 quashing the Appellate Authority's Order dismissing the respondent's Departmental Appeal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred writ appeal No. 2592 of 2001 on 07.06.2001 challenging the same insofar as it related to writ petition No. 18502 of 1993. Vide order dated 25.01.2002, the Division Bench granted interim stay of the operation of the order of reinstatement dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge. By order dated 19.04.2004, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal No. 2592 of 2001 upholding the judgment and order dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the above civil appeal arising out of special leave petition No. 16214 of 2004. This Court granted leave on 17.01.2005 and ordered payment of monthly salary at the rate of last pay drawn by the respondent at the time of her suspension and that the payment shall be made from 01.02.2005.

The loss alleged to have caused, initially was Rs.9,86,980.56 but later on the actual value of the loss assessed was Rs.6,88,737.12 and it was proposed to recover from the respondent Rs.34,436.85 being 5% of the total loss.

The other contention taken by Mr. Francis that criminal proceedings which were initiated against the respondent ended in acquittal, on merits, and that became final. A lenient view must be taken since the charges in both the cases are identically the same. We have already elaborately discussed about this point factually and also with reference to the judgments referred to supra and for the reasons recorded earlier, we reject this contention.

The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was based on dispassionate and independent examination and appreciation of the entirety of facts and evidence on record relating to the malpractices and mis-appropriation indulged in by the respondent in collusion with the other members of the staff causing thereby huge loss to the Corporation.

The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not only impeccable on facts, tenable on law but also unambiguously supported by unassailable reasons in support of their conclusions. Thus the unchargeable acquisition by the learned single Judge and of the learned Judges of the appellate bench that the order of the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority suffer from total non-application of mind is patently devoid of any substance of truth and law.

In the instant case, the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the instant case, the respondent deals with public money and engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, the conclusion of the learned single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We have no hesitation to set aside the same and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal. The Civil Appeal stands allowed. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority ordering dismissal is confirmed and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 as confirmed by the appellate Judges in writ appeal No. 19646 of 2001 dated 25.01.2002 are set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

During the pendency of this appeal, this court passed an order on 17.01.2005 directing the appellant-Corporation to pay to the respondent the monthly salary at the rate of last pay drawn by the respondent at the time of her suspension and that the payment shall be made from 01.02.2005. Since the payment has been ordered by this Court during the pendency of the appeal, we are not inclined to disturb the said order and, therefore, the monthly salary paid pursuant to the above order need not be recovered from the respondent.