High Court · 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDCIATURE AT MADRASDated : 29.11.2005Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K.KRISHNAN W.P.Nos. 10680 of 2003 and 1710 of 2004 1. The Secretary to Government, Small Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.. . . Petitioners in both writ petitionsVs1. R. Venugopal 2. The Registrar, Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai – 104.. . . Respondents in both writ petitionsWrit Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call forthe records of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal inO.A.No.2231 of 2002 dated 23.4.2002 (WP No.10680/03) and inC.A. No.381/2002 (WP No.1710/04) dated 4.4.2003 inO.A.No.2231 of 2002 and to quash the same. For petitioners : Miss. V.Velumani, Additional Government Pleader For R-1 : Mr. S.K. Raghunathan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.)Small Industries Department and the Commissioner andDirector of Industries and Commerce are the petitioners inthe above Writ Petitions.2. W.P.No.10680 of 2003 is filed against the order ofthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.04.2002,made in O.A. No. 2231 of 2002, in and by which, theTribunal directed the Department to pass final orders inrespect of the representation of the applicant within aperiod of three months from the date of its order.3. Aggrieved by the order of the very same Tribunal,dated 04.04.2003, made in Contempt Application No.381 of2002 in O.A.No.2231 of 2002, the same petitioners filedW.P. No. 1710 of 2004.4. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader forpetitioners and Mr. S.K.Raghunathan for contesting 1strespondent.5. In order to appreciate the reasoning given by theTribunal, it is relevant to refer the relief sought for bythe applicant in O.A. No. 2231 of 2002 before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal. The applicant prayed for adirection, directing the respondents viz., Small IndustriesDepartment and the Commissioner and Director ofIndustries and Commerce, to consider and pass orders on therepresentation of the applicant dated 03.10.2001 withregard to the revocation of suspension and permit him toretire from service with effect from 31.12.1994 and alsogrant consequential benefits.6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the reliefprayed for and the stand taken by the Department in theircounter affidavit, and also taking note of the fact thatthe applicant had become due for retirement in 1994, theJudgement in the Criminal case has been pronounced inJanuary 2004, resulting in acquittal, and the Governmenthas not passed final orders, directed the respondents topass final orders on the representation of the applicantwithin a period of three months. Even after the acquittalby the Criminal Court in respect of the criminal chargeslevelled against the delinquent, inasmuch as the Departmenthas not passed final order resulting in hardships andsufferings, the applicant made a representation on03.10.2001, requesting for revocation of suspension and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treating him retired from service with effect from31.12.1994. Since no order had been passed, the Tribunalgranted three months' time for disposal of the saidrepresentation. In such circumstances, we do not find anyerror or infirmity in the said order of the Tribunal.7. Since the Department was not in a position to passfinal orders within the time as directed by the Tribunal inthe order dated 23.04.2002, they filed an Application inM.A. No.5678 of 2002, praying for extension of time for afurther period of six months beyond 22.07.2002. In thisregard, it is useful to refer the stand taken by theDepartment in the petition filed in M.A. No.5678 of 2002.In paragraph No.6, it is stated as under:-" 6. It is submitted that the timeavailable to finalise the issue of finalorders in respect of respondent herein, asper the orders of Hon'ble TamilnaduAdministrative Tribunal, is upto 22.07.2002.The respondent herein is under suspensionfrom 15.05.1979 and on revocation ofsuspension a decision has to be takenregarding regularisation of period ofsuspension. For implementing the orders ofTamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, therespondents are to consult theAdministrative Departments of theSecretariat before issue of orders revokingthe suspension of the respondent, permittinghim to retire on the date of hissuperannuation (31.12.1994) regulating theperiod of suspension, payment of back wagesetc. It may take some more time to theapplicants herein to arrive at a conclusionon the implementation of the orders ofTamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. Hence,the final orders could not be issued before22.07.2002 ie., the date fixed by thisHon'ble Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. "8. In the light of the stand taken by the Department,the Tribunal, after finding that there is no justificationfor granting further time, directed the Department toimplement the order dated 23.04.2002 within a period offour weeks and posted the said Application to 24.01.2003for reporting compliance. Inasmuch as the department didnot comply with the order even within the extended period,the applicant filed a Contempt Application in C.A. No.381of 2002 for punishing the respondents/Department. By order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 04.04.2003, the Tribunal, after recording a factualfinding that though direction was given to dispose of theenquiry and pass final orders within three months from22.04.2002, even in April 2003, the Department had nottaken any follow-up action, and finding that there is nojustifiable reason on the side of the Department, passed anorder annulling the charge memo dated 10.02.1986 and alldisciplinary proceedings. In the same order, the Tribunalalso concluded that the applicant shall be deemed to havebeen retired with effect from the date of retirement in theyear 1994 and closed the Contempt Application. Questioningthe said Order, the Department has filed W.P. No. 1710 of2004.9. Learned Additional Government Pleader, by drawingour attention to the relief prayed in O.A. No.2231 of 2002,contended that in the absence of specific request by theapplicant for quashing the charge memo and that the prayerbeing one for disposal of his representation, the Tribunalis not justified in quashing the charge memo and annullingall the disciplinary proceedings. In other words,according to her, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdictionin passing such order. 10. On going through the Application filed, reliefprayed, order passed in O.A. No.2231 of 2002, the standtaken by the Department in the petition filed for extensionof time in M.A. No. 5678 of 2002 and the final order passedin C.A. No.381 of 2002, we are unable to accept the saidcontention for the following reasons, The order of the Tribunal dated 23.04.2002 cannot befaulted, since the Tribunal directed the Department topass orders on the representation of the applicant within aperiod of three months. As a matter of fact, in thepetition for extension (we have already extracted therelevant portion – para.6), the Department informed theTribunal in categorical terms that in consultation with theAdministrative Department of the Secretariat, necessaryorders will be issued and it may take some more time toarrive at a conclusion on the implementation of the orderof the Tribunal. In such circumstances, they prayed forextension of time for a further period of six months beyond22.07.2002. We have already referred to the order dated26.12.2002, wherein, the Tribunal had granted four weekstime for compliance and implementation of the earlierorder. Inasmuch as even after the said order, theDepartment had not passed any orders, the applicant movedthe Tribunal by way of Contempt Application No.381 of2002. In view of the attitude of the Department, viz., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that no order was passed even after acquittal in theCriminal Case and on the representation of the applicantfor revocation of his suspension, the Tribunal, instead ofpunishing the persons concerned, taking note of allrelevant materials including the decision of the CriminalCourt, acquitting the applicant on merits, the charges inthe departmental proceedings and undue delay in notpursuing the same, finally annulled all the disciplinaryproceedings pursuant to the charge memo dated 10.02.1986. 11. Learned Additional Government Pleader, by relyingupon the decision reported in 2004 (12) SCC 12 579(Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P. vs. M.Adinarayana),would contend that the interference by the Tribunal in amatter of this nature is very limited and according to her,the Tribunal exceeded its limits and committed an error inquashing the charge memo. Absolutely there is no disputewith regard to the proposition of Law as laid down in theJudgement of the Supreme Court. We have already referredto the sufferings of the applicant and all relevant factsincluding the acquittal in the criminal case,representation for revocation of suspension and inaction onthe part of the Department in not pursuing the enquiry inspite of the direction given by the Tribunal. In suchcircumstances, we are of the view that the said decision isnot helpful to the stand taken by the Department. In thisregard, it is relevant to refer Rule 25 of the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988, whichreads as under:-"Orders and directions in certain cases.--The Tribunal may make such Orders or give suchdirections as may be necessary or expedient togive effect to its orders or to prevent abuse ofits process or to secure the ends of Justice."The above provision makes it clear that the Tribunal isempowered to pass appropriate orders/directions in order togive effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its processas well as to secure the ends of justice. There is no needfor us to refer the details furnished by the applicant forapproaching the Tribunal and the orders passed by it. 12. In the light of the factual details mentionedabove and in view of the attitude of the Department orinaction on their part in not implementing the orders ofthe Tribunal and pursuing the departmental proceedings,considering Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988, referred above, we are ofthe view that the Tribunal is fully justified ininterfering with the disciplinary proceedings and annulling https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same while passing an order in the Contempt Applicationfiled by the applicant. We are in agreement withthe said conclusion and we do not find any valid groundfor interference.13. Accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and thesame are dismissed. No costs. JI/graSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Registrar,Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal,Chennai – 104.+ 2 cc to Govt. Pleader sr no. 46952 and 46951+ one cc to Mr. S.K. Rakhunathan Advocate sr no. 46793AK(CO)NM(07.12.2005) W.P.NOS. 10680 of 2003 and 1710 of 2004