IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13/02/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
W.P.NO.3272 of 2006
AND
W.P.M.P.No.3442 of 2006
1. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 5. ..Petitioners
-Vs-
1. S.Ponraj
2. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai 104. ..Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
2nd respondent relating to the O.A.No.657 of 2003 dated 15.03.2004 and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Subbarayan
For Respondent-1: Mr.V.Radhakrishnan
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA, J).
Heard Mr.V.Subbarayan, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. The present respondent No.1 was working as Town Planning Officer,
Grade I in Alandur Municipality. He had purchased certain property in the
months of October 1998 and January 1999 without giving any prior intimation to
the department. Subsequently, he gave such intimation in June 1999.
Thereafter, just few days before he was to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation, disciplinary proceedings were started and he was placed under
suspension. The allegation in the disciplinary proceedings was to the effect
that he had purchased the property without giving any intimation to the
departmental authorities as contemplated in the rules and he had borrowed
money from his wife. The enquiry officer found that the property had been
purchased without giving any intimation and intimation had been given only
subsequently. However, the enquiry officer also found that the delinquent
officer had given the explanation to the effect that vendor of the property
was going away to America and therefore, there was some urgency in purchasing
the property and therefore, the enquiry officer recommended to exonerate the
delinquent officer. However, the disciplinary authority, differing from the
findings of the enquiry officer held that the delinquent had violated the
rules and passed an order of dismissal from service. The first respondent
filed an appeal, which having been dismissed, original application No.657 of
2003 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took into account the fact
that even though the delinquent officer had not given prior intimation, he had
subsequently voluntarily intimated about the transaction. The Tribunal also
observed the fact that enquiry officer had suggested that the proceedings may
be dropped. Keeping in view these special circumstances, the Tribunal
interfered with the order of dismissal dated 03.01.2002 and modified that
punishment into one of stoppage of increment for three years without
cumulative effect and further directed that such amount may be adjusted from
the terminal benefits of the present first respondent as he had already
crossed the age of retirement. Such order which was passed on 15.03.2004 has
been challenged by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department, by filing a writ petition on 19.12.2005. In other
words, the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of about one year and
nine months.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that since there was an infraction of the rules, the Tribunal should
not have interfered with the order of punishment. The learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent on the other hand apart from supporting the
observations given by the Tribunal has contended that the writ petition itself
is filed after a long lapse of time. It is also pointed out by him that since
the order of the Tribunal was not implemented, the present respondent No.1 had
filed W.P.No.38395 of 2005 which was disposed of on 28.11.2005 by giving the
following direction:-
” In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to disburse
the terminal benefits and pension payable to the petitioner, pursuant to the
orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 15.0 3.2003 passed in
O.A.No.657 of 2003 together with interest within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other legal
impediment.”
4. It appears that the present writ petition has been moved after
such a direction was given by this Court and notice of contempt had been
issued by the counsel.
5. After having heard counsel for both parties at length and after
going through the orders passed by the Tribunal and connected papers, we do
not think that it is a fit case where the order passed by the Tribunal should
be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts and
circumstances and bona-fides of the transaction and had come to a particular
conclusion. In such matters, the High Court does not act as the appellate
authority over the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any merit
to interfere with the order.
6. Apart from the above, the writ petition itself is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of laches. The present petitioner had kept quiet for
about 21 months and only after receipt of the order passed by this Court
earlier and initiation of contempt proceedings, this writ petition has been
filed. No particular explanation has been furnished in the writ petition
explaining the laches. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in
this writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three months time may be
allowed to comply with the order. Accordingly, we grant three months time.
Index:Yes
Internet: Yes
rg
To
The Registrar,Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104.
