IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10/08/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
W.P.No.3731 of 2001
C.Thiraviam .. Petitioner
-vs-
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering and
Service Co-Operative Federation
Ltd., 117, Thiagaraya Road
T.Nagar, Chennai 17. .. Respondent
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the
respondent made in Adm.2/12100/2000 dated 31.1.2001 passed by the respondent
herein and quashing the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sankarasubramanian
For Respondent : No appearance
:ORDER
This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the order of the respondent dated 31.1.2001.
2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, there was no
representation for the respondent’s side. This Court heard the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, perused the affidavit in support of the petition
and had a scrutiny of the materials available including the order under
challenge.
3. From the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it would be quite clear that the
petitioner was working as a Managing Director in the District Agro Engineering
Service Society, Kanchipuram from 26.6.2000, and previously, he was the
Managing Director of Tirunelveli Society. On transfer from Tirunelveli to
Kanchipuram, he was serving so, and he was holding the said permanent post.
The Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering Cooperative Federation Ltd., the respondent
herein, is a state level unit, and its District Unit is known as District
Cooperative Agro Engineering Services Ltd. The District Unit is affiliated to
AGROFED as referred to above. Pursuant to the proposal to start Uzhavar
Santhai at Kanchipuram, the site for starting the Uzhavar Santhai was chosen
by the District Collector. The construction work was actually entrusted with
the petitioner, and it was done under his supervision also. After the work
was over, some technical difficulties and lapses in the construction were
noticed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Marketing, the funding authority,
and the same was reported to the respondent. On receipt of such report, the
respondent served on the petitioner, an order dated 31.1.2001 removing him
from service, which is under challenge.
4. A reading of the order impugned would reveal that the petitioner
was held responsible for the following.
“(a) As a Managing Director he has not inspected the construction of Uzhavar
Sandhai at Kancheepuram and not sent any report to this office.
(b) He has not requested to this office the site selected on the construction
work of Uzhavar Sandhai work at Kancheepuram is suitable or otherwise.
(c) He has not sent technical report about the foundation of beams, basement
and lintel etc. He has not consulted any Senior Officer for inspection and
further follow up action.
(d) Therefore, he has not done his legitimate duties as Managing Director of
the society in this aspect. Due to his lethargic attitude, the Federation has
incurred a loss of Rs.6.00 lakhs for which he is responsible for the loss
incurred to the Federation.”
The said order does not refer to any memo of charges levelled against the
petitioner or any enquiry conducted or speaks of any opportunity of being
heard before passing such an order.
5. A scrutiny of the counter affidavit would also reveal that the
order under challenge has been passed directly without even framing charges
against the petitioner or calling for any explanation or giving an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner; but on the contrary, the affidavit would
read that the petitioner under the provisions of the Act should have preferred
an appeal, challenging the said order of termination of service. It was
contended by the respondent’s side that instead of exhausting that remedy, the
petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition, and hence, the writ petition
was to be dismissed.
6. In a given case like this, where the respondent in his capacity as
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering and Service Cooperative
Federation Ltd, in violation of the principles of natural justice, has passed
such an order, without any hesitation, the same has got to be set aside. The
case of the respondent that there are appeal provisions available under the
Act, and he should have exhausted the remedy by way of an appeal does not
require any consideration at all in a case like this where an order has been
passed even without framing charges or calling for explanation or giving an
opportunity of being heard. Therefore, it is a fit case, where the order of
the respondent has got to be set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner is
entitled to the relief of writ of certiorari asked for. It is brought to the
notice of the Court that pending the writ petition, the petitioner works in
the same department in the said post, pursuant to an order of stay of the
impugned order by this Court.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the order of the
respondent is quashed. However, it is made clear that this order in no way
would stand in the way of framing the necessary charges and conduct of an
enquiry against the petitioner by the competent authority in accordance with
law. No costs.
Index : yes
Internet: yes
To:
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering and
Service Co-Operative Federation
Ltd., 117, Thiagaraya Road
T.Nagar, Chennai 17.
nsv/