Karuppasamy(died) v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.6.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.12380 of 2003 1. Karuppasamy(died)

Ketchiammal.

Chelladurai,4.Backyavathi,5.Muthammal. (Petitioners 2 to 5 are impleaded as legal representatives of thedeceased first petitioner as perorder dated 30.6.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.328 of 2009) ... Petitioners vs.1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.2.The Zonal Manager, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Tirunelveli-627 011. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to callfor records of the second respondent in No.E2/7387/02 dated 3.6.2002and to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate thepetitioner in service with back wages from the date of dismissal ofservice. For Petitioners : No representationFor Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -----

O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the secondrespondent in No.E2/7387/02 dated 3.6.2002, to quash the same anddirect the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, the deceasedKaruppasamy, in service with back wages from the date of dismissalof service.2. It is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner Karuppasamy died. By order dated 30.6.2009 made inW.P.M.P.No.328 of 2009, the wife, son, daughter and mother of thedeceased Karuppasamy were added as petitioners 2 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners was heard on theearlier occasion and the relief was restricted to service benefitsonly in view of the death of the employee.

The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the writpetition is as follows:- (i) The deceased Karuppasamy joined the respondent corporationon 5.8.1976 as Bill Writer/Bill Clerk in the office of Senior ZonalManager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. He was transferredfrom place to place. (ii) According to the respondents, while the petitioner wasworking as a Bill Clerk at Amudham Fair Price Shop, Pillayarnathamin Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, he stayed away fromduty and did not remit the sale proceeds realised for the periodfrom 27.7.1983 to 31.7.1983. On 3.8.1983, the deceased Karuppasamywas placed under suspension pending charges. On 8.8.1983, theofficers of the respondent department in the presence of VillageAdministrative Officer and village panchayatdars, inspected theshop under the control of the deceased Karuppasamy. At this time, they found shortage of essential commodities and shortage of cashas well.

Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 pointed out variousfactual aspects of the case and implored upon this court to considerthe date of suspension consequent to the irregularity pointed out, the date of charge memo, the explanation given to the charge memo, finding of the enquiry officer, subsequent show-cause notice forpunishment, the explanation submitted by the deceased Karuppasamyand the order of the dismissal dated 29.11.1984. It is stated thatto the knowledge of the deceased Karuppasamy, he was dismissed fromservice on 29.11.1984. However, he failed to take steps tochallenge the same. He has accepted the order of dismissal withoutany demur thereafter. After more than 19 years, the writ petitionhas been filed by him only on the basis of the letter of rejectionby the authorities. The dismissal order remains unchallenged. Thedeceased Karuppasamy or the legal heirs, having failed to challengethe order of dismissal in the manner known to law, are not entitledto seek the relief in the writ petition after lapse of such a long https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of time. He therefore, pleaded that the writ petitionshould be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

Learned counsel for the respondents referred to theexplanation dated 1.3.1984 given by the deceased Karuppasamy. Hepointed out that the deceased Karuppasamy working in a fair priceshop, by his conduct of misappropriation caused great harm to thesociety and the public. Therefore, the deceased employee wascorrectly dismissed from service for proved irregularities andmisappropriation. Hence, the writ petition should be dismissed.

The primary issue that stares before this court is thata charge memo has been issued on 8.2.1984, to which an explanationwas given on 1.3.1984. The domestic enquiry was conducted on11.3.1984, in which the deceased Karuppasamy participated and afinding has been given by the enquiry officer holding that all thecharges framed against the deceased have been proved. Concurringwith the findings of the enuiry officer, on 24.5.1984, a show-causenotice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority as to why thedeceased Karuppasamy should not be dismissed from service. To this, an explanation was given by the deceased on 4.10.1984.Consequently, on 29.11.1984 the dismissal order was passed. Wellaware of these proceedings and having participated in the enquiryand being aware of the dismissal order, there is no explanation bythe deceased Karuppasamy as to why he kept quiet for much a longtime. The deceased, who was served with the order of dismissal on29.11.1984, did not take any further steps to set aside such orderof dismissal in the manner known to law.

No doubt according to the deceased Karuppasamy, thecriminal court has acquitted him from all the charges, that byitself may not be a ground for the employee to state that he waitedtill the disposal of the criminal case and then proceeded into thematter. The proceedings before the department and the criminalcourt are totally different and independent. There is no stay ofthe departmental proceedings by any competent authority or court. Hence, the deceased employee is not justified in challenging therejection of the representation without challenging the order ofdismissal.

The deceased employee or the legal heirs cannot justifythe delay. They slept over the order of dismissal passed in theyear 1984, for 19 years. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India – vs. - JyotishChandra Biswas reported in (2000)6 Supreme Court Cases 562, willbe more appropriate in deciding the present writ petition. Para 6of the Apex Court's decision reads as follows:-"6. The order terminating the service of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondent was passed on 28.1.1969. Thewrit petition was filed challenging the saidorder on 25.3.1975, almost after a period of sixyears. There was no explanation in the writpetition whatsoever for this inordinate delay. The respondent sought for his re-employment inthe Corporation by his letter dated 9.1.1974almost after a period of five years from thedate of termination of his services. It onlyindicated that he accepted the order oftermination of his services, if not expresslybut impliedly. In the writ petition no groundwas raised as to deprivation of a right ofappeal to the respondent against the order ofthe termination of his services. "In this case, except a bald plea with regard to violation ofprinciples of natural justice no reasonable ground has been raised. No specific plea has been taken as to how departmental proceedingsare illegal or arbitrary. In any event, in the present case, thedelay is more than 19 years. The only reason stated is that onacquittal by the criminal court, the deceased Karuppasamy isentitled to be reinstated. That plea is not tenable at this pointof time. In the present case, the respondent conducted the domesticenquiry as per provisions of the law and by following the principlesof natural justice and affording opportunity to the deceasedemployee at the appropriate time. All the charges were proved. Thedisciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiryofficer and after issuing a show-cause notice, the order ofdismissal was passed. There is serious infirmity alleged.