TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Godown situated at Mint Street, Chennai on 05.01.1981 which post she held till 28.01.1983 when she was suspended vide order dated 28.01.1983 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her and the other members of the Mint Godown staff in respect of mis-appropriation of the Corporation's stock and money in the sum of Rs. 9,86,980.56 committed by her in collusion with the other members of the staff through fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into account the stocks received by them, showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts, submission of defective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and records etc. In 1983, a criminal complaint was filed by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the respondent herein and other members of the staff of the Mint Godown for offences under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. The said case was registered as crime case No. 14 of 1983 in calendar case No. 5964 to 5967 of 1983. Vide charge memo dated 16.02.1984, the Disciplinary authority levelled against the respondent herein as well as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings to be initiated against her, while further directing that the period of suspension with effect from 01.02.1983 till the date of the order of dismissal would be treated as a period of suspension. On 11.12.1991, the High Court disposed of the writ petition No. 1337 of 1984 and quashed the order of suspension. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991, the respondent preferred a Departmental Appeal to the Joint Managing Director, the Appellate Authority. Vide common show-cause notice dated 27.01.1992, the Disciplinary Authority intimated the official proposal to recover the loss suffered by the Corporation on account of the malpractices of the charged officers proportionately at 5% of the total value of the loss with interest, while calling upon the charged officers including the respondent herein to show-cause within 15 days from the receipt of the notice why the said amount should not be recovered from the charged officers. Meanwhile, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.15554 of 1992 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second appellant herein to pay to the respondent-writ petitioner salary and other bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1991 directing her reinstatement with all consequential benefits, while also allowing the writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 quashing the Appellate Authority's Order dismissing the respondent's Departmental Appeal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred writ appeal No. 2592 of 2001 on 07.06.2001 challenging the same insofar as it related to writ petition No. 18502 of 1993. Vide order dated 25.01.2002, the Division Bench granted interim stay of the operation of the order of reinstatement dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge. By order dated 19.04.2004, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal No. 2592 of 2001 upholding the judgment and order dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the above civil appeal arising out of special leave petition No. 16214 of 2004. This Court granted leave on 17.01.2005 and ordered payment of monthly salary at the rate of last pay drawn by the respondent at the time of her suspension and that the payment shall be made from 01.02.2005. We heard Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for this point. It was further submitted that the case of the respondent/employee was that she issued the maida from the stock in the godown after getting permission from the Assistant Manager concerned and there was contemporaneous accounting of the same in the sales register and in the stock register of the Amudham departmental store and, therefore, she cannot be held responsible for the loss whatsoever. It was further contended that actually 12 employees were involved in this case and admittedly some of the employees who were also placed under suspension along with the respondent were reinstated. No specific reasons have been given by the appellant-Corporation why she was discriminated. The loss alleged to have caused, initially was Rs. 9,86,980.56 but later on the actual value of the loss assessed was Rs. 6,88,737.12 and it was proposed to recover from the respondent Rs. 34,436.85 being 5% of the total loss. The respondent employee has been in service from 30.11.1974 to 28.01.1983 and during this time this is the only known allegation against the respondent employee and there was no such allegation earlier. Therefore, he requested this Court to mould the prayer an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has gravely erred in interfering with the punishment awarded to the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry guilty of misappropriation and other heinous malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, an institution primarily concerned with distribution of the essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu. We have perused the common judgment of the learned single Judge and also of the Division Bench. What seems to have weighed predominantly with the learned single Judge was 1) acquittal of the respondent by the Court of C.J.M. Chennai; 2) an erroneous impression that both the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry were based upon identical set of facts; 3) an erroneous impression that both the disciplinary authority, while passing the order of dismissal and the appellate authority, while dismissing the respondent's departmental appeal assigned no reasons whatsoever in support of their conclusions. We are unable to countenance the view and impression taken by the learned single Judge. In our view, the single Judge has mis-directed herself in reaching the erroneous c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re on totally different sets of facts and charges; (iii) The order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 16.6.1994 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the respondent's Departmental Appeal are exhaustive orders, incorporating the statement of the correct and relevant facts of the case and impeccable conclusions based on dispassionate appreciation of the evidence on record and supported by legally irrefutable reasons. In our opinion, both the learned single Judge and the learned appellate Judges of the High Court failed to consider and appreciate dispassionately and judicially the Corporation's most emphatically pronounced plea that it would be virtually impossible for them to reinstate the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry guilty of mis-appropriation and other malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, an institution primarily concerned with the distribution of essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu whose dismissal from service has been upheld by the appellate authority vide its very detailed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circumscribed limits." 2) In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, it was observed at page 762 para 18 as under: " A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 3) In Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 764 (Three Judge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 378 and 3) Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra etc., (1998) 7 SCC 84. The first judgment was cited by Mr. Francis for the proposition that in a quasi judicial enquiry, a reasoned report of the enquiry is essential. The second judgment was cited for the proposition that disciplinary enquiry against respondents declared to be vitiated on account of non-observance of the principles of natural justice. This contention has no merits. A perusal of the enquiry officer's report in which the respondent has fully participated and the order of the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority would go to show that the order passed by them are very detailed, well-considered and well-reasoned verdict. The conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are exhaustive in nature incorporating the correct and relevant facts of the case and conclusion based on the appreciation of the evidence on record and supported by legally irrefutable reasons. 4) State of Karnataka vs. Amajappa and Others (2003) 9 SCC 468 The other contentions made by Mr. Francis are in respect of procedural irregularity which, ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The scope of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of criminal proceedings in a Court of Criminal law are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. The prosecution proceedings launched against the respondent herein were in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A I.P.C., whereas the Departmental Proceedings as initiated against her were in respect of the charges of misappropriation and other fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into accounts the stock received showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts, submission of defective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and records etc. Thus, the respondent herein was proceeded against for quite different charges and on different sets of facts before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the one hand, and before the Departmental Enquiry on the other. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not only impeccable on facts, tenable on law but also unambiguously supported by unassailable reasons in support of their conclusions. Thus the unchargeable acquisition by the learned single Judge....