Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 91 (MAD)

K. H. Eswaran v. S. Mani

2008-01-08

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- The above contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent Contemnor for willful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 211. 2003, made in W.P.No.33650 of 2003. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he has been serving as an Assistant Manager in Kotagiri Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. Charges had been framed against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct of misappropriation of funds. Therefore, a domestic enquiry had been ordered. In spite of the objections raised by the petitioner, an ex parte enquiry had been conducted against him. However, the report of the enquiry officer had not been served on the petitioner. A notice had been served on the petitioner proposing to remove him from service. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33650 of 2003, challenging the notice stating that the show cause notice served on the petitioner was vitiated since the enquiry conducted against him was illegal as the principles of natural justice had not been followed and it had been conducted without giving him an opportunity to contest his case. 3. It is further stated that this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent herein to defer the punishment till the objections raised by the petitioner were considered and decided. The respondent was also directed to serve the order of the enquiry officer, dated 11. 2003, on the petitioner and also to grant the petitioner two weeks time from the date of the receipt of a copy of the enquiry report to file his explanation. Though the petitioner had sent a letter, on 211. 2003, requiring the respondent to comply with the order, there was no response from the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a reminder by his letter, dated 21. 2004. However, without complying with the order passed by this Court, the respondent had served a letter, dated 30.1.2004, on the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.5,91,975.60/-. 4. It was further stated that the petitioner was kept under suspension from 112. 2002 without being paid the subsistence allowance due to him. In the above circumstances, the contempt petition has been filed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the petitioner, while working as an Assistant Manager in the respondent Bank, had misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,08,991/-. 2002 without being paid the subsistence allowance due to him. In the above circumstances, the contempt petition has been filed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the petitioner, while working as an Assistant Manager in the respondent Bank, had misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,08,991/-. Therefore, an enquiry officer had been appointed, under Section 81 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. By a letter, dated 112. 2002, the petitioner had admitted his guilt. Therefore, the petitioner had been suspended from service from 112. 2002, pending grave charges against him. A charge memo, dated 2. 2003, was served on the petitioner, on 2. 2003. An enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry. In spite of the repeated adjournments, the petitioner had not attended the enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry was concluded, on 11. 2003, holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved based on the records available before the enquiry officer. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, had issued a second show cause notice, dated 111. 2003, along with the enquiry report and the same was received by the petitioner, on 111. 2003. 6. It has been further submitted that the petitioner, having received the enquiry report, had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33650 of 2003, suppressing the said fact. Based on the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by its order, dated 211. 2003, setting aside the show cause notice on the ground that the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice. Further, the petitioner had been paid the subsistence allowance, during the period of his suspension, from 20.12.2002 to 211. 2003. 7. It has been further stated that the respondent had received the order passed by this Court only on 212. 2003, whereas the petitioner had been dismissed from service, after giving him sufficient opportunity, by an order issued on 211. 2003. The said order sent by registered post had been received by the petitioner, on 211. 2003. 8. 2003. 7. It has been further stated that the respondent had received the order passed by this Court only on 212. 2003, whereas the petitioner had been dismissed from service, after giving him sufficient opportunity, by an order issued on 211. 2003. The said order sent by registered post had been received by the petitioner, on 211. 2003. 8. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 211. 2003. The order of dismissal had been passed by the respondent at 10.00 a.m. on 211. 2003, before he had knowledge of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33650 of 2003. Further, it is seen that the petitioner had been served with the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice, dated 111. 2003, which was received by the petitioner, on 111. 2003. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before the order of dismissal, dated 211. 2003, had been issued by the respondent. In such circumstances, the above contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.