IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:9/8/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN
Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2000
A. Gnanaprakasam ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Director Personnel
Block I
Corporation Office
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
2. The Chief Personnel Manager
Block I
Corporation Office
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
3. The Personnel Manager (S & FS)
Block 18
Corporation Office
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
4. Senior Personnel Manager/S & FS
Township Administrative Office
Block 10
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
5. The Deputy Chief Security Officer
Appellate Authority
Neyveli. ... Respondents.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
the proceedings of the fourth respondent issued in Memo No. 3495-2/SPM/S &
FS/TA/98 dated 27/4/99 and that of the fifth respondent dated 18/12/1999 and
to quash the same.
!For petitioner ... Mr.M.Jaichandran
^For respondents ... Mr.N.A.K.Sarma
:O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the
order of dismissal. The writ petitioner herein was employed in Neyveli
Lignite Corporation and for his misconduct charges were framed, which are as
follows:-
(i) He contracted the second marriage, when his first wife was alive.
(ii) He referred his second wife as his first wife and availed family
planning incentives and other medical benefits.
(iii)He also availed special casual leave, for which he was not
entitled to.
(iv) He also availed leave travel concession/assistance for his second wife in
the name of first wife.
Departmental enquiry was conducted and findings were given, and a second
show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner. After getting the
explanation, disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of dismissal from
service. Against that, he filed an appeal and the appellate authority has
confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and hence he was dismissed
from service. Challenging the above said order of dismissal, present writ
petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that with regard to bigamous marriage circumstances, Neyveli Lignite
Corporation had issued a circular dated 21/7/1992, which reads as follows:-
“In order to follow the uniform procedure in awarding
punishment by the disciplinary authorities for one and same misconduct, it has
been decided to impose the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for
all the case of bigamous marriage.”
3. In so far as the charges against the petitioner are
concerned, he contracted the second marriage during the year 1992 and a charge
memo was issued in the year 1998. According to Mr.Jaichandran, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Article 20 Clause 1 of the Constitution
of India prohibits awarding of penalty more than that was provided for on the
date of commission of offence. In this case, when the bigamous marriage was
contracted by the petitioner, the punishment for that was reduction of pay by
two stages. Only by the guidelines issued on 21/1/1999, the punishment was
increased to removal from service. Therefore, for the bigamous marriage the
authority cannot impose the punishment of dismissal from service.
4. Mr.Sharma appearing for the respondents submits that the
guidelines issued on 30/6/1998 and 21/1/1999 are not mandatory and the
disciplinary authority is not taking note of those guidelines.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out
that in the guidelines dated 21/1/1999 it was brought to the knowledge of the
disciplinary authority for strict adherence to the guidelines without any
deviation. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service could not have
been imposed instead of stoppage of pay at two stages. The second part of
Article 20 Clause (1) applies equally to the case on hand. Therefore for
having committed misconduct of contracting the bigamous marriage, maximum
punishment could have been awarded was stoppage of pay at two stages and not
more than that.
6. On perusal of the finding of the disciplinary authority as
well as the appellate authority, dismissal from service has been imposed after
taking all the five charges cumulatively. In view of the fact that it is not
possible for this Cou to the conclusion that for the charges of impersonation
and other charges, whether the disciplinary authorities would have imposed a
punishment of dismissal or removal from service. Under these circumstances,
this Court cannot substitute its view to that of disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority. Therefore, the only option for this Court is to remit
the matter back to the appellate authority setting aside the order passed in
appeal. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the entire matter afresh
and pass further orders as it may deem fit. While doing so, it may also hear
the writ petitioner, if he wants to make any further representation, within a
period of one month from today. Considering the facts of this case, the
appellate authority may pass orders within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the order.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
mvs.
To
1. The Director Personnel
Block I
Corporation Office
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
2. The Chief Personnel Manager
Block I
Corporation Office
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
A.K.RAJAN,J
(mvs).
3. The Personnel Manager (S & FS)
Block 18
Corporation Office
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
4. Senior Personnel Manager/S & FS
Township Administrative Office
Block 10
Neyveli Lignite Corpn Ltd.,
Neyveli 607 801.
5. The Deputy Chief Security Officer
Appellate Authority
Neyveli.
