The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following relief:
'' To issue a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in Na.Ka.No.23691/2011/A3 dated 27.11.2011, on the file of the second respondent herein, viz., The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram and the consequential order dated 08.05.2015 in G.O.(2D) No.297 Revenue (Service 4(2)) Department passed by the first respondent, quash proceedings in the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to disburse the retirement-cum- service benefits of the petitioner herein.''
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the year 1980 in the Revenue Department. He was promoted as Deputed Tahsildar in the year 1996 and further promoted as Tahsildar in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, he had rendered unblemished 32 years of service. While he was serving as Tahsildar, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, some discrepancies were found in discharge of duties by the petitioner. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Sub-Ordinate Services (D & A) Rules dated 27.11.2011. The said charge memo was the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.20712 of 2013. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. This fact was brought to the knowledge of this Court in the said writ proceedings and there upon, the learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 29.07.2013, passed an order directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 27.11.2011. The writ petition stood disposed of. The learned single Judge has granted six months time for completing the disciplinary proceedings from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings were not completed as per the direction passed by this Court in the order dated 29.07.2013. In the said circumstances, on behalf of the respondents, a miscellaneous application was filed in W.P.No.20712 of 2013, praying for extension of time for completing the disciplinary proceedings. The said petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 07.07.2014. The learned single Judge, after adverting to the submissions made by the parties, refused to entertain the miscellaneous petition and dismissed the same. The learned single Judge had observed in the said proceedings that the period stipulated in the earlier order had already expired in February 2014 itself and therefore, the miscellaneous petition seeking further time cannot be entertained.
3. In spite of the above position, the respondents persuaded the disciplinary action against the petitioner and therefore, he was constrained to challenge their action by filing the present writ petition challenging the charge memo once again, principally on the ground that once the time granted by the Court had expired, the respondents have lost their right to proceed with the enquiry. While the present writ petition was pending before this Court, the respondents proceeded with the disciplinary action and ultimately, vide G.O.(2D) No.297, Revenue (Service 4(2)) Department dated 08.05.2015, imposed punishment of Rs.1000/- cut per every month on the pension of the petitioner for a period of two years. The petitioner had taken out an application for amending the prayer by including the subsequent order passed by the respondents imposing the punishment. The said application has been allowed.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once this Court had applied its mind when an application for extension was sought for and the same was held to be not valid and dismissed the same, it was not open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and imposed a penalty, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 2505 (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government & Another Vs.Ranganathan), wherein, the Division Bench held that once the time is granted by the Court and the same has not been complied with by the respondents, they had lost their right to continue disciplinary action against the employee concerned. The Division Bench of this Court has relied on the decisions reported in 2010(2)LW 867(The State of Tamilnadu and another Vs. T.Ranganathan), 2010 (3) MLJ 625 (K.Sulochana Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil).
5. Upon notice, Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel, the learned Additional Government Pleader has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and filed his counter affidavit. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the punishment has been imposed vide impugned order dated 08.05.2015 and an attempt has been made to explain the reason as to why the disciplinary proceedings cannot be completed within the stipulated time by this Court in the earlier proceedings. This Court is unable to persuade itself to the said explanation since this Court has earlier applied its mind to the reasons set-forth by the respondents in the miscellaneous petition seeking extension of time and the same having been dismissed by this Court, it was not open to the respondents to re- open the issue in further and as held by the Division Bench of this Court, they have lost their right to continue disciplinary action against the petitioner.
6. This Court after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the disciplinary proceeding has not been completed as per the original order passed by this Court dated 29.07.2013, in WP.No.20712 of 2013, further action taken which culminated in the punishment order dated 08.05.2015 cannot be countenanced in law.
7. In view of the same, the impugned charge memo dated 08.05.2015 is set aside. There shall be a consequential direction to the respondents to refund any amount which has been recovered from the pension of the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:Yes/No dn To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, The Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 006.
2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram Division, Kancheepuram.
15.09.2017
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
dn W.P.No.21333 of 2014 15.09.2017 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
''To issue a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the common orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 21.03.2014 in I.A.No.123 of 2013 in C.P.No.121 of 2012 and in I.A.No.46 of 2014 in I.D.No.53 of 2013 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to permit Thiru. I.S.Pushparaj as an Authorised representative to appear on behalf of the petitioner in all the proceedings in connection with C.P.No.121 of 2012 and I.D.No.53 of 2013.''
2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Copiest on 12.05.1993 in the first respondent/Management. On the basis of certain allegations agasint him he came to be dismissed from service on 08.08.2012. The Industrial Dispute agaisnt the order of dismissal ion I.D.No.53 of 2013 and the same taken up on the file of the third respondent/ Labout Court fro adjudication. The petition had also filed a computation petition NO.121 of 2012 for certain financial benefits which are payable to him. The petitioner has engaged service on one ...who was retired employee of the first respodent/Management represented him the proceedings before the Concialiaiton Officer and also before the Labour Court inrespect of the pending Industrial Dispute and the computation petition.
The Management filed their before the Labour Court, in I.D.No.53 of 2003, wherein, they are raised an objection regarding the engagment of I.S.Pushparaj ex-employee of the Management to represent the petitioner in the proceedings. According to the Management, he cannot a retired employee was not a member of any executive or Office Bearer of any Union connected with the Management cannot represent validly before the proceedings in the Labour Court, in terms of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act for the purpose of ...Rule 36 is extracted below:
According to the Management, the engagement of the said Pu.. does not fulfil any of the conditions, nominated as above and therefore, such authorisation by the petitioner herein is invalid and the said ..cannot be allowed Industrial Dispute Act to represent the workent in the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. The third respondent vide its letter dated 21.03.2014 has held that the said..is incompetent to represent the workmen in both the Computation petition No.121 of 2012 and I.D.No.53 of 2013. The third respondent/Labour Court had agreed with the contensions putforth by the Management with the terms of Section 56 of the I.D. Act. The said ..authorisation cannot be a valid authorisation and he is not competent in law to represent the workmen. The said order passed by the third respondent is under challenge before this Court.
The leanred counsel for the petitioner/workmen would content that since the employees recognition has already employed the said , who represent the workmen in the proceedings before the Labour Court by virtue of such authorisation, the said came competent enough to represent his workmen before the Labour Court. He would submit that the intention of the Management when they objected to the appears of ..representing the workmen, is something else as the Management fell little uncomfortable when they to dealth with the said ...since he was originally an Office Bearer when he waas in service and only to avoid him they had invoked the help of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
What ever be the reason behind the Management decision to ..by the workmen with an objection has to be primarily viewed within the time frame on caveat the statutory provisions de-hourse the intention of the parties.
In the instant case, Section 36 is extracted supra is very clear and it is also in the position that ..who was an retired employee and was not holding any position in the Union cannot validly represented the workmen in the proceedings before the Labour Court when there is a statutory emborgo as in the present case, mere participation of the said ...in the ..cannot be given him further allowed to workmen in the proceedings before the Labour Court.
It is needless to mention that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are incorporated within certain intentions by the framers of the law for smooth functioning of both labour and Management and for Industrial peace.
In the said circumstances, it is not for this Court to represent seeming into Section 36, which is otherwise not found in the said Section. The Section 36 is very clear and express it and this Court cannot be in any other interpretation. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there are no merits in the contension raised by the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.