High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 24..3..2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW. P. No. 26217 of 2001andW.P.M.P. No. 38792 of 20011.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by Joint Secretary to Government Environment & Forests DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai – 92.The Principal Chief Conservator of ForestsPanagal BuildingSaidapet,Chennai... Petitioners-vs-1.A. Karikalan2.The RegistrarTamil Nadu Administrative TribunalChennai – 104... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed bythe Tribunal in O.A. No. 4197 of 2000 dated 21.3.2001.For Petitioners : Mr. K. Rajasekar, Spl. GP (Forests)For Respondent 1: Mr. M. RaviORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Heard the arguments of Mr. K. Rajasekar, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader representing the petitioners and Mr. M. Ravi,learned counsel for the first respondent and have perused therecords.2.In this writ petition, the petitioner State of Tamil Naduchallenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunalin O.A. No. 4197 of 2000 dated 21.3.2001. The first respondent was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ working as a Forest Extension Officer. By an order dated 30.3.1995,the second petitioner informed the first respondent that there was noleave application received from him and that he was directed to joinin the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore in the light ofG.O. Rt. 436, Environmental and Forests Department dated 17.5.1993.By the said order, the first respondent, who was on compulsory wait,was transferred and deputed to work as Lecturer in the Tamil NaduAgricultural University, Coimbatotre, with immediate effect. 3.The petitioner filed O.A. No. 2258 of 1995 challenging theGovernment Order as well as the consequential direction. TheTribunal granted an order of status quo on 31.5.1995. It was arguedby the first respondent that despite the interim order, he was notgiven any posting order. He filed another Original Applicationbeing O.A. No. 10082 of 1995 to consider his representation forposting. The Tribunal in that O.A. On 03.12.1998 directed theGovernment to consider his representation. Pursuant to thatdirection, he was posted as Forest Extension Officer, Tirunelveli on03.02.1999. After joining at Tirunelveli on 24.3.1999, he made arepresentation to regularise his services from 01.7.1992 to03.02.1999 during which time, he had stayed away from work. Thefirst petitioner refused his request on the ground that thedisciplinary proceedings are pending against him and his case ofregularisation will be considered only after disposal of the same.It is against this order, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 4197 of2000.4.For curious reasons, the O.A. No. 2258 of 1995 was dismissedas it had become allegedly infructuous. The Tribunal was concernedonly with O.A. No. 4197 of 2000 with regard to regularisation of hisleave period from 01.7.1992 to 03.02.1999. It was contended by thefirst respondent that since the charge memo given to the petitionerwas confined only with regard to the unauthorised absence for theperiod from 01.3.1992 to 30.3.1995 and the period thereafter, wascovered by the order of status quo dated 31.5.1995 in O.A. No. 2258of 1995, there was no impediment for regulating the period between30.3.1995 to 03.02.1999, i.e, the date on which the petitioner wasgiven a further posting order to join at Tirunelveli. 5.It was seriously objected to by the petitioners bycontending that the first respondent had applied leave only up to15.11.1992 and there was no leave application from the firstrespondent thereafter. However, the Tribunal took a very liberalview with a view to help the applicant / first respondent and heldthat the period from 01.7.1992 to 15.11.1992 was covered by the leaveletter and the same cannot be taken as an unauthorised absence.Thereafter, the Tribunal held that though the period from 15.11.1992to 30.01.1995 was not covered by the order of the Tribunal but theperiod from 30.01.1995 to 03.02.1999 was covered by a status quoorder of the Tribunal in O.A. No.2258 of 1995. The Tribunal held https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that since the petitioners have initiated disciplinary action againstthe first respondent for his unauthorised absence only after he hadmoved the Tribunal, the petitioners are bound to regularise theperiod covered by the status quo order of the Tribunal as per Rules.The Tribunal did not specify as to what was the rule that it wasreferring to. When the Tribunal declined to grant relief for theperiod from 15.11.1992 to 30.01.1995 for which charges have beenframed, it is axiomatic that any regularisation can be done onlyafter completion of the disciplinary proceedings. But it, however,gave a positive direction to regularise the period from 31.5.1995 to03.02.1999 with all attendant benefits. It is against this order,the State has come up with the present writ petition. 6.The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that theTribunal had committed a grave error in vivisecting the period ofunauthorised absence. 7.We are also of the opinion that the Tribunal had adopted anhypertechnical approach without looking into the ground realities.In fact, the first respondent, who was on a compulsory wait, was senton deputation to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University by the orderof the first petitioner in G.O. Rt. 436 Forest Department dated17.5.1993. The first respondent did not obey the order and alsomade a representation. Even when the final notice was given in1995, he had approached the Tribunal and got an interim order on30.5.1995, i.e., a full two years after the order was passed by thefirst petitioner and two months since the reminder letter sent by thesecond petitioner. No one can understand as to why the Tribunalshould have passed an order of status quo on 30.5.1995. Further,the first respondent did not enforce the said order by filing anyexecution proceedings in terms of the power vested on the Tribunal. 8.On the contrary, he chose to send a representation to thepetitioner State and when there was no action, he moved the Tribunalonce again to consider his representation. It was thereafter, thepetitioner State considered his representation and granted a furtherposting at Tirunelveli probably as a stop gap arrangement. It wasnot to be understood as the petitioner was being successful inattacking the Government Order sending him on deputation nor theconsequential direction by the second petitioner to join dutyimmediately. He withdrew the O.A. challenging the deputation /transfer thereby making it clear that there was no judicial verdicton the said order. This was a making of the first respondent himselfto avoid an adjudication on merits of the order of the Government.9.Once the Original Application stood dismissed as eitherhaving become infructuous or withdrawn by the action of the parties,it goes without saying that the interim order also disappears alongwith the final order. In fact, it has been repeatedly held that theCourt cannot be influenced by the interim order while deciding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ main dispute. 10.Recently, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and othersv. Dev Raj and others [2007 AIR SCW 6047] once again reiterated thesame view. The opinion of Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. as found inparagraph 6 of the said judgment may be reproduced usefully:Para 6:".... It is a settled position in law that whiledeciding the dispute finally the Court ought not to beinfluenced by the fact that some interim arrangementshad been made. Such interim arrangements are alwayssubject to the outcome of the main dispute...."11.However, Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the firstrespondent referred to the decision of the Supreme Court inElectronics Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Sateesh S.Rao Sonawalkar [2004 (11) SCC 550] and contended that in the presentcase, when the first respondent had obtained a status quo order, nosteps were taken to vacate the said order. But, on the contrary,basing upon his representation, he was granted relief by giving aposting at Tirunelveli and since the petitioners had given a postingorder consequent upon which the first respondent had joined service,no exception can be taken about the conduct of the first respondent.Further, since the said period is covered by a Court order, theTribunal was right in holding that period to be regularised andprayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 12.This argument is only stated to be rejected. The SupremeCourt in the judgment in the ECIL's case (cited supra) and relied onby the learned counsel for the respondent, did not intend to lay downany proposition of law which will have a bearing on the issue beforethis Court. In fact, the Supreme Court dealt with the peculiarfacts projected before it and it will have no universal application.13.Further, it must be stated that the interim order given byany Court does not mean that it is an order binding even after thedisposal of the main case. It is the first respondent who hadchosen to get his original application dismissed so as to avoid anyadjudication on merits of the transfer / deputation issue. The fateof an interim order depends upon the outcome of the main case and theTribunal was wrong in relying upon the interim order in granting themain relief and that too, without going into the merits of the case.Further, it is not as if that the State had complied with anyexecution proceedings initiated by the first respondent to exercisethe so-called order of status quo. 14.In the present case, the status quo order obtained by thefirst respondent has no legal value as the order of deputation wasmade in the year 1993 and the status quo order came to be passed onlyin 1995. Therefore, the first respondent can take no advantage over https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that order. Further, the issue of unauthorised absence cannot bedealt with on a compartmental basis. It is only on completion of thedisciplinary proceedings and depending on the outcome of the same,any regularisation order can be made in terms of the relevant LeaveRules. The Tribunal, without specifying the rule under which suchregularisation can be made, simply allowed the Original Applicationthereby granting a largesse on the first respondent. Till thefirst respondent justifies his absence in the regularly instituteddepartmental enquiry, he cannot be granted any relief by the Tribunaland therefore, the approach of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous.The order of the Tribunal impugned in this writ petition deserves tobe set aside. 15.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and theorder of the Tribunal is set aside. However, there will be no orderas to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Thefirst respondent's request, if any, for regularising the leavewhether authorised or unauthorised will depend upon the outcome ofthe disciplinary proceedings pending against the first respondent. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1.The Joint Secretary to Government State of Tamil NaduEnvironment & Forests DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai – 92.The Principal Chief Conservator of ForestsPanagal BuildingSaidapet,Chennai 600 015.+ 1 CC To Mr. M.Ravi, Advocate SR NO.16248+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 16383 W. P. No. 26217 of 2001pa[co]gp/31.3.