E.Chinnappan v. The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd. (Chennai Region) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. It is relevant to point out that a Division Bench of this Court, sitting in the Madurai Bench, had an occasion to deal with thewrit appeal preferred by the TASMAC, in W.A.(MD.) No.27 of 2009 dated27.1.2009, wherein similar contentions were raised by the TASMAC,viz.…
- Para 88. In such view of the matter, the impugned orders are setaside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate thepetitioners expeditiously, making it clear that the petitioners shallnot be entitled for salary for the period from the date of theirtermination till the date of…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 22.10.2009Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.JYOTHIMANIWrit Petition Nos.2038 and 2475 of 20091. E.Chinnappan...Petitioner in WP 2038/20092. M.Ramasamy...Petitioner in WP 2475/2009Vs.
The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd. (Chennai Region) Chennai....Respondent in WP 2038/20092. The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd. (Chennai South) Chennai....Respondent in WP 2475/2009Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to quash the orders dated 6.8.2007 in Na.Ka.No.222A/2007/A2praying for the relief stated therein. For petitioners ..Mr.P.Athi Veera Rama Pandian For respondents ..Mr.J.Ravindran
O R D E R The writ petitioners were appointed as Salesman and BarAssistant respectively, in TASMAC retail Shop No.694 at ChennaiSouth. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that when therewas a raid conducted on 30.3.2007, it was found that there wasadulteration in the liquor bottles with water and the said staffmembers were placed under suspension.
It is stated that in the enquiry conducted by therespondents, the petitioner in W.P.No.2038 of 2009, viz.,E.Chinnappan had given an explanation that he was not involved in theadulteration process and that the adulteration was committed becauseof his negligence. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner inW.P.No.2475 of 2009, viz., M.Ramasamy, he is stated to have disowned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his responsibility in the adulteration process, further stating thatdue to medical reasons, he was not available in the shop and came tothe shop only when the inspection was conducted. The impugned ordersof termination came to be passed against the petitioners on the basisthat the petitioners have admitted their involvement in theadulteration process and relying upon the report submitted by theexperts, wherein it was found that an adulteration had been effectedin the liquor bottles.
Even though in the impugned orders, it has been stated thatwithin 30 days, the petitioners could file an appeal before theappellate authority, the petitioners have raised certain vital pointsregarding the nature of enquiry conducted, which shows thatprinciples of natural justice have not been followed in its propersense.
As far as the alleged confession stated to have been made bythe petitioner in W.P.No.2038 of 2009, a reading of the letter givenby the petitioner shows that he has stated that he has nothing to dowith the adulteration, but at the same time, he has admitted hisnegligence, which cannot be a ground to decide that it is aconfession given by the petitioner. In the explanation given by thepetitioner in W.P.No.2475 of 2009, he is stated to have disowned hisresponsibility in the adulteration process. In any event, there isabsolutely no evidence to show that the petitioners were involved inthe adulteration charge.
It is relevant to point out that a Division Bench of this Court, sitting in the Madurai Bench, had an occasion to deal with thewrit appeal preferred by the TASMAC, in W.A.(MD.) No.27 of 2009 dated27.1.2009, wherein similar contentions were raised by the TASMAC,viz., such confessions should be taken as the proof against the shopstaff by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 1997 (7) SCC332 (Dharmarathmakra Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar EducationalInstitution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal). This case of the Apex Court was referring to a Professor working in an educationalinstitution, who is stated to have made certain confession, based onwhich the termination order came to be passed. But, the DivisionBench has held that the confession statement made by a highlyeducated person holding a responsible post of a Professor cannot beequated to that of these sort of Salesmen working in TASMAC and heldthe same yardstick cannot be followed.
The Division Bench, whileconfirming the order of the learned single Judge directingreinstatement, has observed in paragraph No.4, which reads asfollows:- "4. When the respondent herein came forward with thewrit petition contending that the said statement dated19.4.2005 was not voluntary and when we peruse the saidstatement dated 19.4.2005, we are convinced that it would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been practicably not possible for the respondent tohave written such a detailed statement running into 1 ½pages in typing while admitting his guilt. Therefore, whensuspicion looms large in accepting the so-called statementdated 19.4.2005 said to have been given by the respondentherein, the learned Judge was perfectly justified inpermitting the appellants to initiate proper disciplinaryaction in accordance with law. In those circumstances, weare not in a position to apply the decision relied upon bythe learned counsel appearing for the appellants reported in1997 (7) SCC 332 (Dharmarathmakra Raibahadur Arcot RamaswamyMudaliar Educational Institution v.
Educational AppellateTribunal), inasmuch as that was a case where an educationalinstitution proceeded against one of its professors, who isstated to have made a confession statement based on whichthe termination came to be issued. As between a professorand a TASMAC salesman, it is very difficult to apply thevery same yardstick which was applied to the professor to aTASMAC employee. We are therefore not in a position to applythe ratio of the said decision to the facts of the presentcase where there is every likelihood of the TASMAC employee, who is not very well educated, to succumb to such pressurewhile making statements when he is apprehended with certaincharges. Moreover, in the case dealt with by the HonourableSupreme Court, the concerned professor did not resile fromthe statement made by her in response to the show causenotice issued to her. "
It has to be noted that these petitioners are the persons whojoined the services of the respondents not for leading asophisticated life, but for their livelihood. In fact, in thesecases, it is seen that at the time of joining the job, thepetitioners were made to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and so onand mostly people from the downtrodden state of the Society had optedto join such jobs by depositing such huge amounts. In suchcircumstances, such confession statements, stated to have been madeat the time of inspection, cannot be a ground for the purpose ofterminating their services, unless the charge against the petitionersare proved by concrete evidence.
The principles of natural justice in the process ofadministrative law is the same where a person is holding a high postor a person is holding a lower post in their jobs. Inasmuch as adecision has been taken under the impugned orders to terminate theservices of the petitioners on the basis of the enquiry stated tohave been conducted, by not even furnishing the enquiry report, butbased on the the alleged confession statements, it is difficult toaccept the contention of the respondents that an enquiry had beenconducted in this case and therefore, they should be directed to filean appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In such view of the matter, the impugned orders are setaside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate thepetitioners expeditiously, making it clear that the petitioners shallnot be entitled for salary for the period from the date of theirtermination till the date of such reinstatement. The writ petitionsare disposed of accordingly. No costs. gs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar/True Copy/ Sub. Asst. RegistrarTo1. The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd. (Chennai Region) Chennai.2. The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd. (Chennai South) Chennai.+ Two CCs to the Mr.P.Athiveera Rama Pandian, Advocate SR.56097 ,56099W P NO.2038 & 2475 OF 2009MS(CO)EU 29.10.2009.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 22 Oct 2009. The bench was P JYOTHIMANIWRIT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.