Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1698 (MAD)

M. Venkatachalam v. Tamil Nadu Khadi Chennai

2013-04-18

T.RAJA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The writ petition has been filed by one M.Venkatachalam challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent Board in his proceedings (Ms)No.40, dated 8.7.2004 wherein, the Board has confirmed the major punishment of dismissal from service. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as Khadi Assistant Grade II in Tanjore Khadi Kraft. He was placed under suspension by the third respondent by his proceedings RC No.6191/97/E1, dated 11.8.1987 pending enquiry into grave charges contemplated. Subsequently, he was issued with a Charge Memo on 16.7.1997. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 22.8.1997. When the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry on the alleged charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after giving fair and proper opportunities, completed the enquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice on the basis of the enquiry report calling upon him to submit his written explanation. Though the petitioner submitted his written explanation requesting the second respondent/Disciplinary Authority/Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries, Kuralagam not to accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and disagreeing with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the order of removal from service stating that the Manager Sivanandan and the petitioner Venkatachalam are liable to repay a sum of Rs.1,52,063.50 each, alleged loss caused to the Board. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Board and the Appellate Board also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by the order dated 8.7.2004. Challenging the same the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent/Appellate Board failed to give any opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and he did not even consider the explanation on the charges levelled against the petitioner. When it is not a case of the misappropriation, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer ought not to have been accepted by the first respondent Board to hold against the petitioner that the petitioner misappropriated the money belonging to the Board. When it is not a case of the misappropriation, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer ought not to have been accepted by the first respondent Board to hold against the petitioner that the petitioner misappropriated the money belonging to the Board. When the written explanation given by the petitioner followed by the enquiry report makes it clear that the petitioner only acted on the instructions of his Manager Sivanandam and that vital aspect also has not been considered by the first respondent Board. Moreover, when similar departmental proceedings were initiated against the other co-employees, the very same first respondent Board by taking note of the loss caused by them, imposed only the minor punishment. But, in the case of the petitioner alone wrongly imposed a major penalty of removal from Board's service. Hence, such kind of approach adopted by the first respondent Board in confirming the order passed by the second respondent is a discriminatory and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. It was further submitted that when an appeal was filed before the first respondent Board on the specific ground that the grave punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner should be reconsidered in the light of the minor punishment given to the similarly placed co-employees in the same Khadi Board, it was not even considered by the Appellate Authority and hence, he has prayed this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent Board confirming the order passed by the second respondent imposing the major punishment of removal of the petitioner from service and also requested to impose some minor punishment instead of removal from service. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board refuting the allegations. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that totally ten charges were framed against the petitioner and most of the charges were relating to the misappropriation of the Board's fund. A mere perusal of the Charge Memo clearly shows that the petitioner on various occasions, repeatedly committed serious mistakes by misappropriating the Board's fund. The first Charge clearly shows that the petitioner, while preparing a bogus Credit Bill in the name of fictitious person, who was not even working in Kundavai Nachiyar Arts College, misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,760/-vide Credit Bill No.434263, dated 22.10.1995. The first Charge clearly shows that the petitioner, while preparing a bogus Credit Bill in the name of fictitious person, who was not even working in Kundavai Nachiyar Arts College, misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,760/-vide Credit Bill No.434263, dated 22.10.1995. The second charge also clearly shows that the petitioner, while preparing another Credit Bill No.437004 dated 13.1.1995 in the name of V.Ramadoss, Professor for Mathematics in Pushpam College, misappropriated a sum of Rs.258.20. Similarly, the third charge also shows that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.508/-, while preparing the Credit Bill No.220211 in the name of one S.Krishnamoorthy, Administrative Officer (Retired), Government Hospital, Nagapattinam and he endorsed in the second copy of the Bill as if the amount was collected from the party, but he failed to remit the amount to the office. The other charges also show that he has repeated his serious misconduct of embezzling the Board's fund. The ten charges framed by the Khadi Board clearly show that the petitioner prepared fictitious Credit Bills in the name of bogus persons and also made forged signatures for the purpose of misappropriating the amount of Rs.2,14,144.55 and thereby, he failed to bring to the notice of the third respondent, Assistant Director. 7. He further pleaded in support of the impugned order passed by the first respondent Board, which was confirmed by the second respondent that during the enquiry, the petitioner was cross-examined on 13.6.2000. Moreover, the petitioner had accepted during the course of cross-examination that he and another person Thiru S.Sivanandham, Khadi Assistant Grade I have committed misappropriation. He had also given the written representation dated 15.10.2001 agreeing to deduct a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from his salary to make good the loss of the misappropriated amount. In view of the admission made by the petitioner through the written representation dated 15.10.2001 and also accepting the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer holding that all the charges were proved, the Chief Executive Officer, by his proceedings Rc.No.57398/E4(1)/97, dated 29.5.2002, removed the petitioner from Board's service. 8. Aggrieved by that he prepared an appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority Board. 8. Aggrieved by that he prepared an appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority Board. The first respondent Board also properly applying their mind on the specific request made by the petitioner in the appeal that when the similarly placed co-employees found guilty on the same charges were given lesser punishment, while confirming the major punishment of dismissal, refused to reduce the punishment imposed by the second respondent, by assigning the reason that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on par with the other similarly placed co-employees as it dealt with different proceedings and the amount of loss caused to the Board was meager in comparison with the financial loss caused by the petitioner herein along with Sivanandam is more than that of 2,14,144.55. On this basis, he has prayed this Court not to interfere with the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents not to interfere with the impugned order carries more force. 9. For, it is seen from the records that the second respondent/ Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed the order of removal from service for the reason that the letter dated 15.10.2001 written by the petitioner to the third respondent/Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries Board, Egmore clearly shows that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and agreed to compensate the loss and thereby he requested the Board to deduct a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from his salary to make good the loss of the misappropriated amount. The written admission made before the Enquiry Officer during the course of cross-examination on 13.6.2000 admitting all the charges that he and another person Sivananadham had misappropriated the sum of Rs.2,14,144.55, brings down the controversy. Further, when the petitioner himself has clearly admitted his guilt, the respondent Board cannot show any leniency on the petitioner. Moreover, When the matter was taken up by way of appeal before the first respondent Khadi Board, the Board, while dealing with the appeal, completely lost its confidence on the part of the petitioner for the reason that the ten charges levelled against the petitioner indicated the repeated misbehavior of him, therefore, it refused to consider the case of the petitioner for reduction of the punishment of removal to lesser punishment. 10. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the petitioner himself admitted in his written admission that he had committed misappropriation with the Manager S.Sivanandham before the Enquiry Officer during the course of cross examination on 13.6.2000 and he also requested the Board to deduct a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from his salary to meet out the misappropriated amount by his letter dated 15.10.2001, he can not legally question the same, therefore, this Court is not able to show any indulgence on the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service ordered by the second respondent/Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the first respondent/Appellate Board cannot be re-looked into for the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.