This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.V2/1594/2016, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Shop Supervisor in TASMAC; that on 08.07.2016, the respondent conducted inspection and a charge memo dated 11.07.2016 was issued against him, stating that the petitioner and the Sales man sold liquor for higher price; that though proper explanation was given by the petition, he was suspended from service without considering the explanation. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. According to the respondent, the petitioner sold Black Parel Beer for Rs.120/-, whereas its actual price is Rs.110/- and that during inspection, there was shortage of Rs.6,606/- and therefore, the impugned order of suspension is perfectly justified and it warrants no interference by this Court.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in 2013 (14) Scale 323, an order of suspension is not a punishment and the relationship between the employer and the employee subsists even during the period of suspension. When there is master and servant relationship, the suspension can be effected by the employer and it cannot be questioned except on certain grounds like competence of the Authority issuing the said order, want of jurisdiction, contrary to the Rules, etc. Hence, as long as the competency of the authority issuing the suspension order is not challenged, this Court cannot interfere with the order of the suspension.
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) In the event of the respondent initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the same shall be conducted on day to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond one week at any point of time;
ii) It is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till the respondents pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings;
iii) If the respondent do not initiate any disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is made ready, the petitioner should be reinstated into service immediately thereafter;
iv) It is made clear that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (Home, Prohibition and Excise Department) and the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation are mainly responsible for the loss to the Government, on account of such compelled reinstatement, pursuant to the delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings within the period prescribed by this Court and the loss can be recovered from them by applying the principles laid down in the case of Central Co-operative Consumers' Store Ltd. vs. Labour Court, H.P. at Shimla and another, reported in AIR 1994 SC 23, and their properties can also be attached in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Sachidanandam, Macneil and Magor Kilburn Group Companies Employees' Union, Chennai vs. S.Srinivasan and others, reported in 2011 (5) LLN 696 (DB) (Mad.).
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the attention of this Court Clause Nos.xiii to xv of the Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Acts in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, 2014 (in short ?Code?), which read as under:
?xiii. Sale of stock sold at premium (MRP violation) shall be classified as a serious offence. The quantum of penalty for such serious offence shall be prescribed by the Managing Director considering, inter-alia, the repetition of such serious offence;
xiv. Recovery at the rate of one and a half times of amount of shortage/excesses, misappropriation, theft of cash and/or stock/any other asset held at retail vending shops/depots/any other offices of TASMAC with an interest of 24 per cent annum from the date of occurrence or detection whichever is earlier. Where the property including cash of TASMAC is in the custody or use of more than one employee, it shall be deemed to have been entrusted to each of them jointly and severally and accordingly for any loss or damage each of them shall bear loss or damage jointly and/or severally;
xv. Recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation;
Provided in case of fraud or suspected fraud involving officer deputed from Government department or other Public Sector Undertakings shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules applicable to him.
II. In case of person other than employee-
i.Forfeiture of deposits of any type/nature (EMD, Security Deposits, Bank Guarantee, etc.) ii. Black listing for minimum three years or for life time.
iii. Recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to TASMAC.
III. In addition to above, TASMAC reserve right to prosecute the alleged fraudulent person and initiate appropriate civil or other legal proceedings to recover any losses suffered by TASMAC or unlawful gains obtained by other persons in a Court of Law.
7. Normally, this Court will not render any finding with regard to suspension, as it is for the authority to decide. In this case, since action has been initiated under the Code, apart from other provisions, the above clauses shall also be taken note of, while taking a decision thereon. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Sivagangai..