This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the second respondent in No.E2/7387/02 dated 3.6.2002, to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, the deceased Karuppasamy, in service with back wages from the date of dismissal of service.
2. It is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner Karuppasamy died. By order dated 30.6.2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.328 of 2009, the wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased Karuppasamy were added as petitioners 2 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners was heard on the earlier occasion and the relief was restricted to service benefits only in view of the death of the employee.
4. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the writ petition is as follows:-
(i) The deceased Karuppasamy joined the respondent corporation on 5.8.1976 as Bill Writer/Bill Clerk in the office of Senior Zonal Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. He was transferred from place to place.
(ii) According to the respondents, while the petitioner was working as a Bill Clerk at Amudham Fair Price Shop, Pillayarnatham in Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, he stayed away from duty and did not remit the sale proceeds realised for the period from 27.7.1983 to 31.7.1983. On 3.8.1983, the deceased Karuppasamy was placed under suspension pending charges. On 8.8.1983, the officers of the respondent department in the presence of Village Administrative Officer and village panchayatdars, inspected the shop under the control of the deceased Karuppasamy. At this time, they found shortage of essential commodities and shortage of cash as well.
(iii) On 1.6.1984 a criminal complaint complaint was lodged against the deceased Karuppasamy in crime No.76 of 1984 under
Section 409 I.P.C.. On 8.2.1984, a charge memo was issued under Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Service Rules. On 1.3.1984, the deceased Karuppasamy gave a written explanation. It is stated by the respondent that the deceased Karuppasamy admitted certain irregularities and misappropriation. On 11.4.1984, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The deceased Karuppasamy appeared before the enquiry officer. After giving him reasonable opportunity and perusing the documents, the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that all the charges framed against the deceased Karuppasamy was proved.
(iv) On 24.5.1984, the Disciplinary Authority, Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and called for an explanation from the deceased Karuppasamy as to why he should not be dismissed from service. On 4.10.2004, the deceased Karuppasamy gave his explanation. Not convinced the same, on 29.11.1984, the deceased Karuppasamy was dismissed from service.
(v) After more than 12 years, on 10.7.1996, the criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil ended in acquittal. On 20.12.1986, the deceased Karuppasamy made a representation to the authorities to reinstate him in service consequent to the acquittal in criminal court in C.C.No.242 of 1989. On 25.9.2001, the second respondent rejected a representation. On 3.6.2002, the second respondent rejected the further representation.
(vi) Thereafter on 1.4.2003, the present writ petition has been filed. The relief sought for by the deceased Karuppasamy in the writ petition is that the rejection order dated 3.6.2002 should be set aside and the respondent should reinstate the deceased Karuppasamy in service with back wages from the date of dismissal from service.
(vii) The legal heirs as above on the demise of the said Karuppasamy have submitted that they are entitled to seek the benefits that will accrue to the deceased Karuppasamy and impress upon this court that the order of the dismissal from service dated 29.11.1984 is erroneous and set aside and petitioners are entitled to all service benefits including back wages.
5. Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 pointed out various factual aspects of the case and implored upon this court to consider the 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 for punishment, the explanation submitted by the deceased Karuppasamy and the order of the dismissal dated 29.11.1984. It is stated that to the knowledge of the deceased Karuppasamy, he was dismissed from service on 29.11.1984. However, he failed to take steps to challenge the same. He has accepted the order of dismissal without any demur thereafter. After more than 19 years, the writ petition has been filed by him only on the basis of the letter of rejection by the authorities. The dismissal order remains unchallenged. The deceased Karuppasamy or the legal heirs, having failed to challenge the order of dismissal in the manner known to law, are not entitled to seek the relief in the writ petition after lapse of such a long period of time. He therefore, pleaded that the writ petition should be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the explanation dated 1.3.1984 given by the deceased Karuppasamy. He pointed out that the deceased Karuppasamy working in a fair price shop, by his conduct of misappropriation caused great harm to the society and the public. Therefore, the deceased employee was correctly dismissed from service for proved irregularities and misappropriation. Hence, the writ petition should be dismissed.
7. The primary issue that stares before this court is that a charge memo has been issued on 8.2.1984, to which an explanation was given on 1.3.1984. The domestic enquiry was conducted on 11.3.1984, in which the deceased Karuppasamy participated and a finding has been given by the enquiry officer holding that all the charges framed against the deceased have been proved. Concurring with the findings of the enuiry officer, on 24.5.1984, a show-cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority as to why the deceased 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. Well aware of these proceedings and having participated in the enquiry and being aware of the dismissal order, there is no explanation by the deceased Karuppasamy as to why he kept quiet for much a long time. The deceased, who was served with the order of dismissal on 29.11.1984, did not take any further steps to set aside such order of dismissal in the manner known to law.
8. No doubt according to the deceased Karuppasamy, the criminal court has acquitted him from all the charges, that by itself may not be a ground for the employee to state that he waited till the disposal of the criminal case and then proceeded into the matter. The proceedings before the department and the criminal court are totally different and independent. There is no stay of the departmental proceedings by any competent authority or court. Hence, the deceased employee is not justified in challenging the rejection of the representation without challenging the order of dismissal.
9. The deceased employee or the legal heirs cannot justify the delay. They slept over the order of dismissal passed in the year 1984, for 19 years. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. - Jyotish Chandra Biswas reported in (2000)6 Supreme Court Cases 562, will be more appropriate in deciding the present writ petition. Para 6 of the Apex Court's decision reads as follows:-
"6. The order terminating the service of the respondent was passed on 28.1.1969. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order on 25.3.1975, almost after a period of six years. There was no explanation in the writ petition whatsoever for this inordinate delay. The respondent sought for his re-employment in the Corporation by his letter dated 9.1.1974 almost after a period of five years from the date of termination of his services. It only indicated that he accepted the order of termination of his services, if not expressly but impliedly. In the writ petition no ground was raised as to deprivation of a right of appeal to the respondent against the order of the termination of his services."
In this case, except a bald plea with regard to violation of principles of natural justice no reasonable ground has been raised. No specific plea has been taken as to how departmental proceedings are illegal or arbitrary. In any event, in the present case, the delay is more than 19 years. The only reason stated is that on acquittal by the criminal court, the deceased Karuppasamy is entitled to be reinstated. That plea is not tenable at this point of time. In the present case, the respondent conducted the domestic enquiry as per provisions of the law and by following the principles of natural justice and affording opportunity to the deceased employee at the appropriate time. All the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and after issuing a show-cause notice, the order of dismissal was passed. There is serious infirmity alleged.