High Court · 2025

W.P.No.33310 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASCORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.P.No.33310 of 2014Judgment reserved on 16.04.2025Judgment pronounced on 22.04.2025K.Subramanian...Petitioner.....Vs.....1. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Office of the Director of Handloom Textiles, Kuralagam, Chennai - 108.2. The President, E.H.155, Kasipalayam Adi Dravidar Power-Loom, Weavers Coop.Society Ltd. 79, Kalanjar Karunanithi Nagar, Kasipalayam, Erode - 9. .....Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.21068/2014/H2-1, dated 07.10.2014 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Clerk in the 2nd respondent society with all attendant benefits, back-wages and other monetary benefits. 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 2014For Petitioner : Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondents: Mr.P.Ganesan,Additional Government Pleader ******* O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.21068/2014/H2-1, dated 07.10.2014, and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Clerk in the second respondent society, with all attendant benefits, back wages, and other monetary benefits. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the determination of this case are as follows: " :(i) The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the second respondent society and was found to have committed the theft of 338 dhotis, which were meant for cost-free distribution under the Dhotis and Sarees Scheme, from the second respondent society, and sold them for his personal gain.(ii) For the grave misconduct, the second respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, affording him all opportunities as per the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the petitioner was terminated based on the charges proven in the enquiry. Aggrieved by the termination, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, before the first respondent, 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 2014who dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the dismissal order passed by the second respondent by his order dated 07.10.2014.(iii) While working as a Clerk in the second respondent society, the petitioner stole three bundles containing 338 dhotis, produced under the State Government’s Cost-Free Distribution of Dhotis and Sarees Scheme, on 11.01.2014. He removed the stolen items from the premises of the second respondent using his motor vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 33 AQ 3902 in three trips, for his personal gain.(iv) One Mr. A. Raghupathy, an office boy who witnessed the incident, lodged a complaint dated 13.01.2014 with the second respondent regarding the petitioner’s illegal act. Consequently, on 24.01.2014, the second respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing charges for his misconduct, along with Mr. K. Palani, an Appraiser, who was alleged to have abetted the petitioner.(v) As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, the second respondent ordered a domestic enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer to ascertain the factual position.(vi) The enquiry officer conducted a enquiry, providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry report was submitted on 07.03.2014, communicated to the petitioner on 17.03.2014, and his explanation was sought by the second respondent. Furthermore, the second respondent provided an additional opportunity for the petitioner to present his case by conducting a personal hearing on 17.03.2014, which the petitioner attended.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 2014(vii) In the meantime, the petitioner remained absent from duty without prior intimation to the second respondent society. An explanation was sought from the petitioner, which he submitted on 04.04.2014. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16.04.2014 was issued to the petitioner, and his explanation dated 30.04.2014 was obtained. After considering the same, the entire matter was placed before the Board of the second respondent society. In the Board Meeting held on 27.05.2014, as per Resolution No.1, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 31.05.2014.(viii) Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.3. Mr. C. Prakasam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Mr. K. Palani, who was alleged to be the abettor, was let off, and therefore, the same lenient view ought to have been extended to the petitioner as well. He contended that the department had adopted an unequal approach by terminating the petitioner while taking no action against the other individual allegedly involved in the same misconduct. Furthermore, it was argued that the statement of Mr. Palani had, in fact, strengthened the case against the petitioner. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 20144. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that: (i) The petitioner was appointed as an Appraiser in the respondent society in 1992 and was later promoted to the position of Clerk in 1996. While serving as Clerk, on 18.01.2014, the respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner and one Palani, who was then serving as an Appraiser, stating that on 11.01.2014, a motorbike was used to transport three bundles of price-less dhotis, totaling 338 in number.(ii) On 24.01.2014, the respondent issued a charge memo, framing charges against the petitioner and Palani, alleging that they removed 338 dhotis from the respondent society using a motorbike bearing Registration No. TN-33-AQ-3902. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation in response to the charge memo, asserting that it would be physically impossible to transport 338 dhotis on a two-wheeler. The petitioner further claimed that the respondent and other officials were engaging in malpractice concerning the distribution of price-less dhotis and sarees. He argued that, upon questioning these practices, the respondent issued a frivolous and vexatious charge memo, stating that 338 dhotis were removed from the premises using a two-wheeler, which he maintained was an implausible accusation.(iii) After receiving the enquiry report, the respondent issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner. Despite submitting a detailed explanation in response, the respondent ultimately passed an order of termination against the petitioner.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 20145. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. After considering the rival submissions, I find that the petitioner was appointed as an Appraiser in the year 1992 and was subsequently promoted to the position of Clerk in 1993. According to the charge memo dated 24.01.2014, the petitioner is alleged to have stolen three bundles containing 338 dhotis, which were kept for the Free Distribution of Dhotis and Sarees Scheme of the State Government. The enquiry report states that the petitioner transported these dhotis from the godown using his vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN-33-AQ-3902, making three trips for his personal gain. The eye-witness, his office boy, Mr. A. Raghupathy, filed a complaint dated 13.01.2014 with the second respondent regarding the petitioner’s illegal act.7. Counters have been filed by both the first and second respondents.8.In substance, both counters are identical. The enquiry report has concluded that the charges against the petitioner were proven. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, asking why a termination order should not be passed. Subsequently, the termination order was issued, leading to the present writ petition.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 20149. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the issue of equality in punishment between the petitioner and the abettor, Palani. However, after reviewing the charges against Palani, I find that the charges differ from those against the petitioner. Therefore, no claim of equal treatment can be sustained. The enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority.10. The short point to be decided is whether the petitioner committed the act of theft on 11.01.2014 by taking 338 dhotis, which were kept in three bundles, using his two-wheeler. Witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, and the charges have been held to be proved. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.11.Additionally, after the enquiry report, the petitioner was found to have committed unauthorized absence, though this is secondary. Since the charges related to the misconduct of stealing 338 dhotis have been proven, I find that the order of termination is consistent with the proven charges.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 201412. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 22.04.2025nvi Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoTo1. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Office of the Director of Handloom Textiles, Kuralagam, Chennai - 108.2. The President, E.H.155, Kasipalayam Adi Dravidar Power-Loom, Weavers Coop.Society Ltd. 79, Kalanjar Karunanithi Nagar, Kasipalayam, Erode - 9. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33310 of 2014 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.nvi order inW.P.No.33310 of 2014 22.04.20259/9