✦ High Court of India · 09 Sep 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 09 Sep 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

09 Sep 2024

Bench

Not available

Length

1,851 words

Acts & Sections

Right to Information Act 2005

W.P.No.21198 of 2014IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.09.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.21198 of 2014R.Saravanan... Petitioner-Vs-1.The General Manager/Appellate Authority, OPN-TS II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 807, Cuddalore District.2.TheDepartmental General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, FHS/TA II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 807, Cuddalore District....RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 22.03.2014 in Memo No.TPS-II/HR/DA/7351/1293/2011-9, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 30.04.2013 in Memo No.TPS-II/HR/DA/7351/1293/2011-8, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to repay the amount already deducted by the respondents to the petitioner pursuant to the order of punishment.1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014For Petitioner : Mr.K.SelvarajFor Respondents: Mr.N.NithianandamO R D E RThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 22.03.2014 in Memo No.TPS-II/HR/DA/7351/1293/2011-9, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 30.04.2013 in Memo No.TPS-II/HR/DA/7351/1293/2011-8, and also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to repay the amount already deducted to the petitioner pursuant to the order of punishment.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, while he was working as Senior Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the respondents Corporation, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo bearing Memo No.TPS-II/HR/DA/7351/1293/2011-I dated 19.05.2011. The article charge memo that was framed against the petitioner was under Rule-9 of NLC Employees' (Conduct) Rules. In response to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 12.06.2011, denying the charges levelled against the petitioner and also contended that, in order to 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014avail housing loan, he has handed over the payslip and other property related documents to the Indian Bank but not to any middleman. He also further contended that his action in availing a housing loan for the house property is not part of his duties in connection with his employment under the respondents Corporation and categorically denied the allegation and fabrication of payslip in availing loan thereupon. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Consequently, the second respondent issued his show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.02.2013 and proposed a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage (one increment). In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 18.02.2013 along with a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Indian Bank CIPO Chennai, and requesting the Indian Bank to furnish the documents that were submitted by him at the time of seeking the housing loan. 3. The second respondent after having considered the said representation and the other materials on record, confirmed the proposed punishment of reduction of pay by one stage by order dated 30.04.2013. 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014Aggrieved by the said order dated, 30.04.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 15.05.2013. However, the first respondent confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by passing an order dated 22.03.2014. Aggrieved by orders dated 30.04.2013 and 22.03.2014 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this present writ petition.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation and perused the materials available on record.5. From the perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner, it is noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has parted with the original NLC's payslip to one middleman on an assurance to arrange the housing loan for which the petitioner is otherwise not eligible, and in turn the said middleman has fabricated the payslip, and thereby the petitioner availed the housing loan from the Indian Bank, Chidambaram Branch, fraudulently having been fully aware of the fabrication of his payslip to suite his eligibility for said sanction of housing loan and thereby committed 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014misconduct under Section Rule 26(v) and (xxxii) of NLC Employees (Conduct) Rules. The allegation of fabrication of payslip is not against the petitioner but against the alleged middleman and the name of the middleman is not known, nor the same was brought on record during the course of enquiry. The petitioner has categorically denied the fabrication of the payslip. Further, the petitioner has also made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Indian Bank concerned to furnish the documents that are submitted at the time of submitting the application for sanction of loan. The reply issued by the Bank along with the document admittedly does not contain the so-called fabricated payslip alleged to have been used for the sanction of loan applied for by the petitioner. The second respondent, while passing the impugned order dated 30.04.2013, has taken note of the Right to Information application, submitted by the petitioner and the reply furnished by the Indian Bank and also the fact that the so-called fabricated payslip is not one of the documents that are furnished by the Indian Bank in response to the Right to Information application submitted by the petitioner. The second respondent, having taken note of the above facts, relied upon a copy of the original payslip, which is said to be the fabricated document circulated by the Manager of the Indian Bank concerned, to 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014impose the punishment imposed against the petitioner. 6. As a matter of fact, the document, which is said to have been furnished by the Manager of the Indian Bank, is the basis for framing charges against the petitioner as well as the impugned punishment against the petitioner. But the second respondent, during the course of enquiry, having marked Ex.ME-2, which is said to be furnished by the Indian Bank, but failed to examine any one from the Indian Bank to prove the said Ex.ME-2. As already stated above, the petitioner has categorically denied of having submitted the document under Ex.ME-2 for sanction of housing loan.7. In the light of the categorical denial made by the petitioner of having submitted Ex.ME-2, the respondents ought have examined the officer who furnished the said document to the respondents Corporation, especially in the context of the reply furnished by the Bank in response to the RTI application submitted by the petitioner. But no such witnesses were examined to prove the Ex.ME-2 document, which is the basis for imposing punishment against the petitioner.8. Merely because the petitioner availed loan from the Indian Bank, no 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014presumption can be drawn that he is not eligible for the loan which was sanctioned. No such calculations, details, or particulars are brought on record to show that the petitioner is not eligible for sanction of housing loan basing his original payslip. When the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, raising various contentions, the first respondent, instead of considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal on their own merits, has proceeded to confirm the said order by his order dated 22.03.2014, in a mechanical manner.9. Be that as it may, the alleged misconduct of the petitioner is purportedly under clause (v) of Rule 26 of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Employees' (Conduct) Rules. The Rule 26 which enumerates various misconducts from (i) to (xxxii) indicates that most of the misconducts enumerated therein pertain to the services rendered by its employees during the course of their employment. No doubt some of the misconducts mentioned therein pertain to the conduct outside of employment as well. But the misconduct that is levelled against the petitioner under clause (v) clause (xxxii) cannot be said to the one falling under clause (v) as the same is admittedly not be in connection with the conduct of the employees during the course of his employment. In case, the petitioner has committed any 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014fabrication of payslip and thereby availed loan from the Indian Bank, it is always open for the Indian Bank to take the appropriate steps, including the criminal prosecution. In case criminal prosecution is initiated by the Indian Bank against the petitioner, it is always open for the respondents Corporation to take action under clause (xxiv) of Rule 26 of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Employees' (Conduct) Rules. But this is not the case of the respondents Corporation. The action of the petitioner in handing over the payslip to the middleman, even assuming the same to be true, does not amount to any of the misconducts enumerated under Rule 26 of the Conduct Rules.10. It is a general practice and well known that in the matter of sanction of housing loans, for that matter any other loan, the employees or a general public would depend upon some persons who were acquainted with the process of sanctioning loans and availing of service by itself cannot be treated as a misconduct. Further, the respondents also failed to establish the allegation of the petitioner handing over the payslip to the middleman. There is nothing on record to show, as to who is the middleman who fabricated the payslip of the petitioner. It is only the Ex.ME-2 which is said to have been furnished by the Manager concerned is the basis for the punishment imposed 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014on the petitioner, which remained unproved.11. In the light of the above, it cannot be said that, availing loan from Indian Bank by submitting his payslip can be said to be an act of misconduct committed by the petitioner during the course of his employment in the respondents Corporation. Unless the conduct of the petitioner is brought within the purview of Rule 26 of the Conduct Rules and the said misconduct is established to have been committed during the course of the employment, the same cannot be brought within the purview of misconduct under Rule 26 of the Conduct Rules. Every action or inaction of the employees of respondents Corporation outside the scope of employment cannot be brought within the meaning of misconduct under Rule 26 of the Conduct Rules.12. In the light of the above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained as the respondents Corporation failed to bring home the charge alleged against the petitioner and consequently further the respondents Corporation has no say in the matter of conduct of the petitioner outside the course of employment, especially in the context of the fact that the petitioner only availed a housing loan to fulfill dream of owning a own house.9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 2014MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.,In the light of the above, and considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Memo No.TPS-II/HR/DA/7351/1293/2011-9 dated 22.03.2014 is hereby set aside and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.09.09.2024cdaIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking / Non-Speaking OrderTo1.The General Manager/Appellate Authority, OPN-TS II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 807, Cuddalore District.2.TheDepartmental General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, FHS/TA II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 807, Cuddalore District.W.P.No.21198 of 201410/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21198 of 201411/11

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Right to Information Act 2005