A.Natarajan & Ors. v. The Government of Tamilnadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.06.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NOs.26671 and 26672 of 2010andM.P.Nos.1,1 and 2 of 2010A.Natarajan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.26671 of 2010A.Ravichandran.. Petitioner in W.P.No.26672 of 2010Vs.1.The Government of Tamilnadu, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 104... Respondents in both writ petitions W.P.No.26671 of 2010 is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondentsespecially the 2nd respondent relating to his proceedings made inA1/854/10 viz: TDP Case No.14 of 2010 dt.29.6.2010 (now pendingon his file) and quash the same as null and void illegal andinvalid and consequently directing the first respondent todisburse the full pension entitled to by the petitioner afterapprising of his eligible last drawn scale together with arrears ofretrial and pensional benefits treating his retirement onsuperannuation dt.30.6.2010 as regular retirement without anystipulations for all purposes.W.P.No.26672 of 2010 is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondentsespecially the 2nd respondent relating to his proceedings made inA1/854/10 viz: TDP Case No.14 of 2010 dt.29.6.2010 (now pendingon his file) and quash the same as null and void illegal andinvalid and consequently directing the first respondent to promotethe petitioner as Executive Engineer by including his name in thepanel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion as Executive https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Engineers for the year 2010-11 pursuant to G.O.(D) Ms.No.383Public Works (A1) Department dt.19.8.2010 as S.No.55 A in betweenS.No.55 Thiru.M.Kesavalu and S.No.56 Thiru.B.Ravichandran withall monetary and service benefits on par with his juniors.For Petitioners : Mr.A.Amal RajFor Respondents : Mr.R.Murali, GACOMMON ORDERThe two petitioners have filed the two writ petitionschallenging an order passed by the second respondent, i.e.,Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, dated29.06.2010 and seeks to quash the same and for consequentialdirection to the first respondent Government to disburse the fullpensionary benefits to which the petitioner in the first writpetition is entitled to by treating the services of the first writpetitioner as having retired on superannuation on 30.6.2010 andthat in the case of the second writ petitioner, after setting asidethe charges framed, seeks for a direction to promote him to thepost of Executive Engineer by including his name in the panel ofAssistant Engineers fit for promotion as Executive Engineers forthe year 2010-11 pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.(D)No.383,Public Works Department, dated 19.08.2010 and place the petitioneras Serial No.55A in between the name of M.Kesavalu (Sl.No.55) andB.Ravichandran (Sl.No.56) together with all monetary benefits.2.When the matter came up for admission, the learned Judge,who was in-charge of admission, was not inclined to entertain thewrit petitions and after hearing arguments, orders were reserved.However, on 01.12.2010, the matter was listed and on that day, thisCourt directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions.Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time. 3.It is seen from the records that the petitioners wereinvolved in graft charges and had awarded contracts of PublicUtility Buildings like hospitals to a private company in violationof rules. They had also failed to take action against the defaulttenderers who had failed to execute the contract works awarded tothem. The petitioners had also acted in subversion of Tamil NaduTransparency in Tender Rules 2000. After framing charges, theTribunal had listed out as many as 29 witnesses in support of thecharges. The petitioners instead of facing the charges before theTribunal and establishing their innocent, have rushed to this courtchallenging the charges. 4.At the outset, this court informed the petitioners thatthere are no grounds to interfere with the charge memo and it isfor the petitioners to participate in the enquiry before theCommissioner and establish their innocence. However, thepetitioners contended that the charges levelled against them arevague and that with such vague charges, the Tribunal cannot proceedwith the enquiry. They relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal reportedin AIR 1971 SC 752. 5.In the affidavit, they had referred to various statementsof witnesses enclosed in the departmental enquiry. The petitionershad also enclosed statements of witnesses in their typed set.Therefore, it cannot be said that charges are vague. On the otherhand, charges are referable to evidence on record. It only gives askeleton nature of charges. Only when the statements of witnessesare recorded and they are cross examined and when findings arerendered, the actual involvement of petitioners can come to light. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioners placed relianceupon various division bench judgments of this court, which are asfollows:(a)2005 (2) CTC 169 (Union of India, rep by theSecretary to Government of Pondicherry, (RevenueDepartment), Pondicherry and another Vs. CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and another)(b)2005 (3) CTC 4 (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep bythe Commissioner and Secretary to Government, HomeDepartment, Fort St. George, Chennai and others Vs.R.Karuppiah and another)(c)2005 (5) CTC 380 (A.Obaidhullah Vs. The State ofTamil Nadu, rep by the Secretary to Government, HomeDepartment, Secretariat, Chennai and another)(d)2007 (5) CTC 491 (N.Kunnai Gowder Vs. TheCoimbatore District, Co-op. Milk Producers' UnionLtd.)These were for contending that after reaching the age ofsuperannuation, there is no employer and employee relationship.Therefore, the petitioners cannot be proceeded with. They alsostated that if charges related to old issues, that cannot also begone into. 7.This Court is not inclined to accept the saidsubmissions. The second writ petitioner is still in service and thefirst writ petitioner himself is seeking for pensionary benefits.Since it is pensionary service, an enquiry can be held for anymisconduct as ultimately it will have impact on the pensioneligibility of the petitioner who receives pension. The decisionsrelied upon by the petitioners are in no way helpful to the case onhand. On the other hand, all these decisions have been referred toby the division bench of this court vide judgment in T.K.K.TharmarVs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,Chennai-104 and others reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 877. Afterreviewing all the previous cases including the subsequentpronouncements of the Supreme Court, the division bench held inparagraphs 27 and 28 as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "27.Therefore, in the light of theabove, it has to be held that even afterretirement, if there are statutory Rulesproviding for continuation of the disciplinaryproceedings, no exception can be taken forcontinuing a disciplinary action by an employer.28.In the present case, Rule 9 is acomplete answer for the contention raised by thepetitioner. It must also be noted that veryrecently, the Supreme Court in the judgment inU.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others Vs.Kamal Swaroop Tondon (2008) 2 SCC 41 dealt witha case of the employer's right to initiateaction even after retirement. The followingpassage found in paragraphs 27 and 28 may beusefully reproduced:Para 27:"In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal(2004) 4 SCC 412, the Court held that twoconcepts: (i) resignation; and (ii)retirement were different and employedfor different purposes and in differentcontexts. Resignation brings aboutcomplete cessation of master and servantrelationship, but retirement does not doso. In case of retirement, master andservant relationship continues for grantof retiral benefits.Para 28:If it is so, the appellantCorporation, in our opinion, is right insubmitting that the proceedings couldhave been continued after the retirementof the respondent employee as far as thefinancial loss caused to the Corporationbecause of negligence on the part ofemployee and the benefit claimed by therespondent workman on his terminalbenefits are concerned.8.In the light of the above, both the writ petitions willstand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vvkTo1.The Principal Secretary to Government The Government of Tamilnadu, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 104.W.P.NOs.26671 and 26672 of 2010PKB(CO)Eu 15.6.11