R.Muthukrishnan v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Salem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.1.2009C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P.No.7950 of 2006R.Muthukrishnan.. Petitioner-vs-1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Salem-7.2. The Board of Directors, rep.by its Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem.3. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. .. RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records of the third respondent made inLr.No.17724/D/2002, dated 18.1.2006 confirming the order of thesecond respondent made under proceeding No.68/D2/5393/Legal/TSTC(Slm)/2004-2, dated 22.4.2005 and M.No.68/D2/5393/Legal/TSTC(Salem)/2004-2, dated 09.11.2004 on the file of the firstrespondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent topay the withheld salaries in pursuant to the order passed by himunder M.No.68/D2/5393/Legal/ TSTC (Slm)/2004-2, dated 09.11.2004till date. For petitioner :: Mr.M.Palani For R1 and R2 :: Mr. C.KanagarajFor R3 :: Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya***** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner was working as a Law Officer in the cadre ofan Assistant Manager. He was imposed with a punishment ofreduction in the lowest of the scale of his basic pay for a periodof three years by an order dated 09.11.2004 issued by the firstrespondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board ofDirectors by his appeal dated 12.11.2004. In the 172nd meeting ofthe Board of Directors held on 19.3.2005, the petitioner's appealwas rejected and the same was communicated by a letter dated22.4.2005. The petitioner moved the third respondent by arepresentation dated 16.9.2005. It is not clear under whatprovision of law the petitioner had moved the third respondentGovernment especially when he was working in a Government companyand it is an autonomous body. However, the Government by an orderdated 18.1.2006 rejected his appeal stating that it was submittedbeyond appeal period. It is these orders which are under challengebefore this Court. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.3.2006. His prayerfor an interim order was declined by this Court. Though the matterwas referred to for resolution by the Lok Adalat, as the samecould not be resolved and it was referred back to this court for adecision on merits. On behalf of the first respondent, a detailedcounter affidavit dated 'nil' (September 2006) was filed.3. The charge against the petitioner was that his very claimfor motor accident tribunal Award comes up for settlement and ifthe award amount to be settled is beyond Rs.3 lakhs, it can bedone so only after approval by the Finance Committee/Board. Thepetitioner without following the said instruction, initiatedaction and settled amounts after placing the subject before theSub-Committee, which has no power to make such settlement. Thepetitioner was the member of the Sub-Committee along with theChief Accounts Officer, General Manager and the Managing Director.During November and December 2002, the Sub-Committee decided tosettle certain cases and deposited the amounts which are asfollows :-Sl.NO.MCOP.No.Name of the CourtTotal AmountdepositedRs.Date ofDeposit1805/2000Addl.Dist.Judge II,Krishnagiri5,00,321/-19/11/0221085/2001-do-4,68,252/-4/12/02 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.NO.MCOP.No.Name of the CourtTotal AmountdepositedRs.Date ofDeposit3263/2001-do-8,51,804/-11/12/02437/1996Addl.Dist.Court-cum-Fast Track Court,Dharmapuri7,44,368/-20/12/024. When the decision of the Sub-Committee was placed beforethe Board for ratification, the Board in its meeting dated26.12.2002 did not ratify the action in having deposited theamount without prior approval of the Finance Committee or theBoard. The Board also took exception to the conduct of theofficers for not pursuing appeal remedies to their logical end. 5. The petitioner did not dispute his role in placing thematter before the Sub-Committee, even though the Sub-Committee hadno such financial powers to take decision on award amountsexceeding Rs.3 lakhs. In fact, in his affidavit, he has admittedhis role but defended himself by saying that he had done it in theinterest of the Corporation. The following averments found in para6 may be usefully extracted below:-''6. .... ... In the case of MCOP.NO.37 of 96 though thecorporation entrusted the case to its standing counsel forfiling appeal and though he has filed appeal but notobtained any stay. Therefore in that case also the EP wasfiled to realize the award amount. The executing courtafter several adjournments, finally declined to grant anyfurther adjournment for deposit. But however with greateffort the matter was once again adjourned giving lastchance for the corporation to deposit the award amount. Inthe interest of the corporation and to avoid theattachment of the property of the corporation I initiateda file and placed the matter before the Sub Committee ofMCOP to decide as follows:-1.The award amount may be settled as per the Courtdirection based on the orders passed by the Court on theexecution filed by the petitioner.2.Ratification may be obtained from the Financecommittee/Board later.Such a practice was in vogue for the past 20 years notonly in this corporation but also in all other sistertransport corporation in Tamil Nadu right from theirrespective formation. That practice is bonafidely andhonestly followed in this case also." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Based upon such defence, Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel forthe petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not the onlyperson in the sub-committee and the others who took part in thesub-committee's deliberations were let off. As he alone waspunished, the punishment was discriminatory and excessive. In thiscontext, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in AnandRegional Co-op. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Ltd. -vs- ShaileshkumarHarshadbhai Shah reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548. The passages foundin paragraphs 27 and 28 may be reproduced below:-''Para 27. There is, however, another aspect of thematter which cannot be lost sight of. Identicalallegations were made against seven persons. Themanagement did not take serious note of misconductcommitted by six others although they were similarlysituated. They were allowed to take the benefit of thevoluntary retirement scheme.Para 28. The first respondent might not have optedtherefor. However, having regard to the peculiar factsand circumstances of this case, he should be, in ouropinion, treated on a similar footing. In view of thefact that the first respondent has succeeded in theLabour Court and the learned Single Judge as also theDivision Bench; we are of the opinion that having regardto the overall situation, the interest of justice wouldbe subserved if the award of the Labour Court dated 31-1-2003 as affirmed by the High Court is substituted by adirection that the first respondent shall also be giventhe benefit of voluntary retirement scheme from the monthin which the other workmen were given the benefitthereof." 7. It must be stated that the above case cited by thepetitioner arose out of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thepetitioner therein was a workman under the ID Act. Even otherwise,under the ID Act the power to interfere with the quantum ofpunishment will arise only in cases of dismissal whereas thepetitioner had been visited with a minor penalty alone. 8. In the present case, the petitioner was a LawOfficer/Assistant Manager (MACT) holding an important position andis expected to properly advice the Corporation on legal matters.Further, the charge of discrimination cannot be accepted since theother officers have also been proceeded with by the respondentCorporation. The following averments found in para 11 of thecounter affidavit filed by the first respondent may be usefullyextracted below:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ''As General Manager and Managing Director were ondeputation basis disciplinary action were initiatedagainst them in the respective parent corporation. Inrespect of other two including the petitioner, chargememos dated 12.3.2003 were issued to them. Afterexamining his explanation submitted for the chargememos, domestic enquiry was conducted against theOfficer on 11.3.2004 in accordance with the principlesof natural justice. The enquiry officer has submittedhis findings dated 17.3.2004 holding that the chargesframed against him were held proved beyond any doubt.Based on the enquiry findings second showcause noticedated 20.4.2004 was issued to the officer as to why hispresent basic pay should not be reduced to the lowestof the present scale of pay for a period of 3 years.After examining his explanation the followingpunishments were imposed against the officer vide orderNo.68/D2/5393/Legal/TSTC(Salem)/2004-2, dated09.11.2004.R.Muthukrishnan-PetitionerBasic pay reduced toA.M. (MACT)the lowest of the present scale of payfor a period of 3 yrs.It is submitted that the interest of thecorporation has been compromised for obvious reasons.Since it could be seen that there was time gap foralmost 9 to 12 months in between delivery of award anddate of deposit. During the period 4 Financecommittee/Board Meeting have taken place. It istherefore incorrect to state that proper approval couldnot be obtained".Therefore, the charge of discrimination levelled against therespondent cannot have any legal basis. 9. It must also be made clear that the power of this courtto interfere with the quantum of punishment is very limited. If aperson holds an high office involving financial transaction, hisdegree of integrity and trustworthiness must be unexceptionable.In this context, it will be useful to refer to the decision of theSupreme Court in Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC. Etawah and others-vs- Hoti Lal and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC 605. Thepassage found in para 10 may be usefully extracted below:-''10. It needs to be emphasized that the court ortribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment hasto record reasons as to why it is felt that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges.As has been highlighted in several cases to whichreference has been made above, the scope for interferenceis very limited and restricted to exceptional cases inthe indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in thepresent case as the quoted extracts of the High Court’sorder would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have beenindicated as to why the punishment was considereddisproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mindof the decision taken to the controversy in question andthe decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to givereasons amounts to denial of justice. [See AlexanderMachinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 20.] A mere statementthat it is disproportionate would not suffice. A partyappearing before a court, as to what it is that the courtis addressing its mind. It is not only the amountinvolved but the mental set-up, the type of dutyperformed and similar relevant circumstances which gointo the decision-making process while consideringwhether the punishment is proportionate ordisproportionate. If the charged employee holds aposition of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuiltrequirements of functioning, it would not be proper todeal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such caseshas to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person dealswith public money or is engaged in financial transactionsor acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree ofintegrity and trustworthiness is a must andunexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusionsof the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear tobe proper. We set aside the same and restore order of thelearned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal."10. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by thepetitioner lacks in merits and accordingly will stand dismissed.However, there will be no order as to costs. jsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Salem-7.2. The Chairman, Board of Directors, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem.3. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Palani, SR No. 1667+ 1 cc to M/s. C. Kanagaraj Associates, SR No.1714 MA(CO)SR/23.1.2009 order in W.P.No.7950 of 2006