G.Sivamani v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.12.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P.No.27976 of 2003.......G.Sivamani ... Petitioner. Vs.1.Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.2.General Manager, (Administration) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Head Office, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 042.3.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Conran Smith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086.... Respondents.PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsfrom the files of the respondent 3 and 2 in respect of their impugnedproceedings bearing RC.No.A17/6949/95 dated 30.04.1997 andProc.Rc.No.G1/66605/97 dated 03.12.1999 respectively and quashimpugned quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent bearingRc.No.A17/6949/95 dated 30.4.1997 imposing the punishment ofreduction in rank as the last person in the seniority list withminimum scale of pay and the proceedings of the 2nd respondentbearing Proc.Rc.No.G1/66605/97 dated 03.12.1999 confirming the orderof the 3rd respondent and award costs. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.C.Selvaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThe writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorari calling for the records from the files of the respondents3 and 2 in respect of their proceedings bearing RC.No.A17/6949/95dated 30.04.1997 and Proc.Rc.No.G1/66605/97 dated 03.12.1999respectively and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent bearingRc.No.A17/6949/95 dated 30.4.1997 imposing the punishment ofreduction in rank as the last person in the seniority list withminimum scale of pay and the proceedings of the 2nd respondentbearing Proc.Rc.No.G1/66605/97 dated 03.12.1999 confirming the orderof the 3rd respondent and award costs. 2.The petitioner while working as a Junior Assistant in therespondent Corporation was assigned the work of a Point Clerk. Hewas attending his duty at the Narayanapillai Godown from 8.02.1995along with other workers. In the Godown, huge quantity of Rice andMazoor dhall were kept in stock for public distribution. On14.03.1995 and 15.03.1995 the Vigilance Cell of the respondentCorporation made a surprise inspection and conducted physicalverification of the stocks. During physical verification, it wasfound that there was a shortage of 152 bags of Rice and 57 units ofMazoor dhall. A report was furnished by the vigilance sell on28.03.1995. According to the report, in the top layers of the stocksempty gunny bags were heaped with the intention of misguiding theinspecting officials to believe that commodity is stored. This aetof cheating was noticed and consequently a charge memo dated09.06.1995 was issued to the petitioner and others. The charges areas follows:"The following charges are therefore framed against thestaff noted below:1.Thiru. V.Dhandapani, J.A.2.Thiru. S.Dinakaran, J.A.3.Thiru. A.Isseac, J.A.4.Thiru. S.Murugan, J.A.5.Thiru. G.Sivamani, J.A.Charge 1 The Shortage in stocks 152 bags of rice and 57 bags of Mazoor Dhall have occurred due to collusion of the above JA's with the intention of disposing the same illicitly for their personal gain.Charge 2 In the top layers of the stocks empty gunnies were found with the intention of misguiding the inspecting officials this tantamount to the cheating up of the corporation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Charge 3 From the above acts, the above individuals have proved themselves to be untrustworthy employees of this corporation." 3.The petitioners and others submitted their explanationsto the charge memo. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he wasworking as point clerk in the Godown from 08.02.1985 and the incidenttook place barely after a month of his joining. The stocks are morethan a year old and therefore, he was not responsible for theshortage alleged. On behalf of the respondent Department no oral ordocumentary evidence was let in, in support of the charges.Surprisingly, the Vigilance Cell Report dated 28.03.1995 has not beenrelied upon. The enquiry officer, came to the conclusion that allthe three charges are proved and the report was sent to the SeniorRegional Manager, who after considering the charge memo, explanationof the delinquent/petitioner, Enquiry Officer's Report and otherdocuments, concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and heldthat the charges as proved. He imposed the following punishment"reduction in rank as the last person in the seniority list withminimum scale of pay". Petitioner filed an appeal on 28.07.1997 tothe General manager, (Administration), Tamil Nadu Civil Suppliescorporation Ltd., who rejected the appeal on 03.12.1999 in hisproceedings RC No.G1/66605/97. Thereafter, a Mercy petition wasfiled by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Corporation, which wasrejected on 13.02.2003. The present writ petition has been filedthereafter.4.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitionerreiterated the explanation, submitted by the petitioner to the chargememo, wherein he stated that the inspection was conducted within amonth of joining and the stocks were there for more than a year, andtherefore, petitioner was not responsible for the shortages. In anyevent, the case of the petitioner should be viewed leniently as hewas incharge a part of the godown and cannot be held responsible forall the delinquency. He, further, pleaded that assuming that thereis some shortage as is the case in all Godowns where huge quantity offood grains are stored there was no material to pin point that thepetitioner alone was responsible for the shortage. The petitionerfurther pleaded that the higher punishment, granted to him needsreconsideration in view of the fact that four other delinquent juniorassistants have been imposed with the punishment of stoppage ofincrement for one year without cumulative effect. The counselfurther pleaded that insofar as quantum of punishment is concerned,there is gross discrimination and arbitrariness, and that the Courtshould interfere with the quantum of punishment if not inclined tointerfere with the findings on merit. 5.Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for therespondent corporation and perused the records produced by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officers, who were present as directed by this Court. The counselfor the respondents stated that the huge shortage of essentialcommodities is a national waste. The punishment imposed is to ensurethat shortages as noticed in this case does not occur. It is adeterrent to other staff of the respondent corporation as many areinvolved. He stated that the manner in which the empty bags wereconcealed between layer of bags containing Rice and Mazoor dhallwould show that it was a deliberate action on the part of theofficers. He, further submitted that all the junior assistantsresponsible were charged in the same manner for the delinquency andappropriate punishment was imposed.6.In the present case, all the five Junior Assistantsincluding the petitioner, on the basis of the Vigilance Cell Reportdated 28.03.1995 have accepted that there was a shortage of essentialcommodities to the extent of 152 bags of Rice and 57 units of Mazoordhall. The charge memo has been issued against all the five personswho are of the same cadre. The enquiry officer was of the view thatthe point clerks of the Godown are responsible for the shortage ofstock as they have to take charge from their predecessor aftersatisfying themselves about the quantity. This will apply to all thefive point clerks in the cadre of Junior Assistants. Therefore, whenthe shortage is proved and not disputed, all the five persons shouldbe held responsible for the wrong done and suitable punishment shouldbe imposed. There is no dispute on this issue. 7.In this case in so far as the punishment is concerned,the disciplinary authority imposed higher punishment on thepetitioner. There is no discussion in the order of the disciplinaryauthority, as to why the petitioner was treated differently and isimposed with the higher punishment when other delinquents, whoperformed the same work as Point Clerks in the godown were imposedlesser punishment. When the disciplinary authority chooses to take adifferent view and impose a higher punishment for the very samedelinquency, only in respect of the petitioner, its necessary thatspecific reason should be recorded based on materials. In this case,no such material is relied upon to treat the petitioner differentlyand no special reasons are recorded. Further the disciplinaryauthority has gone by the report of the enquiry officer and there isno discussion about the explanation submitted by the individual tothe alleged shortage of stock. The role of the petitioner in theshortage different from that of other delinquent is not recorded.Therefore, the higher punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot bejustified and to that extent the order of the disciplinary authorityas affirmed by the appellate authority requires reconsideration. 8.In the result, while confirming the findings with regardto the delinquency charged, the impugned proceedings so far aspunishment is concerned is set aside and the matter is remitted backto the third respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regard to the quantum of punishment after hearing the petitioner onthat issue alone. The authority shall keep in mind the punishmentimposed on four other delinquents as pointed above. The WritPetition is disposed off as above. No costs. vsmSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.2.The General Manager, (Administration) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Head Office, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 042.3.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Conran Smith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086.+ 1 cc to Mr. C. Selvaraj, Advocate SR No.69348+ 1 cc to Mr. K.M.Ramesh, Advocate SR No.69321BS(CO)SR/12.2.2010W.P.No.27976 of 2003