IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/07/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ
W.P.No.25498 of 2002
and
W.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002
V. Subramaniam .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village
Industries Board, Kuralagam,
Chennai – 108.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles,
and Khadi Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9. .... Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of writ of mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Kannadasan
For Respondents : Mr. S. Venkatesh, AGP
:O R D E R
Writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to disburse pension arrears, gratuity arrears, medical
allowance and other allowances with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of petitioner’s superannuation on 31.12.1991 and continue to pay his
monthly pension.
2. Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for
admission, on perusal of the pleadings, having regard to the materials placed
on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what could
be gathered is that the petitioner joined the respondent department in the
year 1958 as Sales Assistant and subsequently got promoted as Manager and
while he was functioning as Assistant Manager, Khadi Craft, Cuddalore, the
District Khadi and Village Industries Officer, Cuddalore by order dated
23.05.1974 had placed him under suspension, pending investigation and framing
of the charges relating to irregularities; that in the enquiry, he was not
given full opportunity to cross examine the witness; that in the conclusion of
the charges framed against the petitioner except one charge was held proved
and it was proposed to dismiss him from service and in fact by order dated
11.11.1976, the first respondent dismissed him from service of the respondent
department.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that he preferred an
appeal before the second respondent herein and that was also dismissed; that
he filed W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which also came to be dismissed and he preferred
an appeal in W.A.No.509 of 1979 in which Division Bench of this Court as per
its Judgment dated 05.11.1985, allowed the appeal quashed the order of
dismissal and directed the respondents to pay all the attendant benefits
arising there from further giving liberty to the respondent to conduct an
enquiry afresh; that of much pursuance that the respondent reinstated him in
service; that while disposing of the Special Leave Petition filed by the
respondent, the honourable Supreme Court directed the respondents to deposit
the full amount of backwages payable to him, consequent to which the
petitioner was permitted to withdraw one third of it by this Court.
4. The petitioner would further submit that a fresh enquiry
was commenced and final orders were passed on 22.09.1986 dismissing him from
service; that an appeal preferred by him before the second respondent was also
dismissed by an order dated 06.08.1990 and therefore, left with no option, the
petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. No.17803 of 1991; that the
said writ petition was disposed of on 09.12 .1999 directing the second
respondent to pass appropriate orders on the recommendation of the first
respondent relating to the disbursement of the monetary benefits within the
prescribed time limit and as per the said order, a sum of Rs.1,48,840/- was
paid on 11.02.2000 towards backwages and terminal benefits; that an
application filed by him seeking clarification regarding the continuance of
disbursement of his monthly pension, gratuity, medical allowance etc. in
W.M.P.No.14955 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on 16.10.2000; that an
appeal filed in W.A.No.1078 of 2001 against the said order was also dismissed.
Again and again repeating the same old story of the order of dismissal having
been set aside by this Court in W.A.No.509 of 1979 and accusing that the first
respondent refusing to disburse the backwages and stating that he filed a
clarification petition in which the Division Bench order as on 30.06.1994 as
“when the order of dismissal was set aside and reinstatement was directed, he
must be deemed to have been on duty. Accordingly, he must be treated as in
service from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement”. Based on
these, the petitioner stating that he is entitled to all terminal benefits as
claimed in the writ petition would come forward to seek the relief extracted
supra.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he got dismissed
from service on enquiry as per the order of the first respondent dated
11.11.1976; that an appeal preferred also came to be dismissed, he filed a
writ petition in W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which too came to be dismissed and an
appeal preferred to this order in W.A .No.509 of 1979, the Division Bench of
this Court is said to have been passed a Judgment dated 05.11.1985 allowing
the appeal quashing the order of dismissal with certain directions giving
opportunity to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry and to award
punishment, if the charges are proved.
6. Since the petitioner has not placed on record the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.11.1985, this Court is not in a
position to know as to on what grounds and in what circumstances, the Division
Bench arrived at such conclusions, so as to proceed further, since it is a
crucial judgment said to have been passed in favour of the petitioner in the
entire process of the disciplinary enquiry, but it is an admitted case of the
petitioner, that the respondents were given opportunity to conduct a fresh
enquiry and to award punishment, if the charges are proved. Consequent to
which, a fresh enquiry was held and passed a final order dismissing the
petitioner again from service on 22.09.1986; that an appeal preferred by the
petitioner against this dismissal, having came to be dismissed on 06.08.1990,
the petitioner is said to have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17803 of 1991,
which too was dismissed and it is at this stage that a settlement is stated to
have been arrived at and the writ petition would not supply anything about
what was decided in the settlement regarding the dismissal order passed by the
respondents dated 22.09.1986 and whether the petitioner was reinstated or what
happened to those orders legally passed, but the petitioner would only be
dealing with the disbursement of the monetary benefits and the payment of a
sum of Rs.1,48,840/- on 11.02.2000 towards backwages and other terminal
benefits and ultimately the petitioner stating that he was under the bonafide
belief that the respondents would continue to disburse his monthly pension,
gratuity, medical allowances etc., since they have not been referred to at the
time of disposing of the said clarification petition filed in W.M.P.No.14955
of 2000 having came to be dismissed by an order dated 16.10.2000 and an appeal
preferred against that order in W.A.N0.1078 of 2001 had came to be dismissed
on ground that “the point which is not agitated cannot be raised as a ground
to review the earlier order”.
7. In these circumstances, the petitioner would again raking
up the same old rejected plea not only in the writ petition, but also in the
writ appeal mentioned above, has come forward to claim in this writ petition
also without placing the full details regarding his claim and without stating
anything regarding the ultimate dismissal order passed especially in view of
the fact that a writ petition and the writ appeal filed against the said order
have both been respectively dismissed.
8. While such being so, when the dismissal order had been
confirmed on appeal also, what made the respondent authorities ultimately
enter into compromise is neither revealed not able to be understood nor any
material has been placed on record regarding the same. But so far as the
clarification rendered by the Division Bench in its order dated 30.06.1994
made in C.M.P.No.3951 of 1994 is concerned, no where it could be seen that
subsequent to the Division Bench Judgment made in W.A.No.509 of 1979 dated
05.11.1985 that an opportunity has been given to the respondents therein to
initiate fresh enquiry. But a fresh enquiry had been held and ultimately the
petitioner got dismissed from service from 22.09.1986 and the appeal preferred
by him before the appellate authority had also been dismissed as per the
appellate authority’s order dated 06.08.1990 which had not at all been brought
to the notice of the Division Bench while seeking clarification.
9. However, yet another single Judge and the Division Bench
have dismissed the same plea of the petitioner, which he has repeated in this
writ petition as it comes to be seen from the orders passed by the single
Judge in W.P.No.15409 of 1998. Moreover, the clarification sought for in the
order dated 09.12.1999 made by the single Judge in W.P.No.17803 of 1991 for
one and the same purpose had also been dismissed by the Division Bench in its
Judgment dated 03.07.2001 made in W.A.No.1078 of 2001 and therefore, the
petitioner having lost all his opportunities since has come forward to file
this writ petition also without any right or without any locus standi to file
such a writ petition, unless liberty has been given by the Division Bench,
which ultimately dealt with the subject and dismissed his plea as on
03.07.2001 (on reasons that the point which is not agitated cannot be raised
as a ground to review the earlier order), filing such a writ petitions,
agitating a non existent right is nothing short of an attempt to waste the
precious time of the Court without any basic right or locus standi or valid
reasons to offer as it has been admitted in this writ petition by the
petitioner. In short the petitioner has claimed the relief without
establishing his locus standi to agitate on writ petition after writ petition
or his right to claim such relief simply forgotting the fact that this Court
could only once exercise its discretionary jurisdiction on a subject and
cannot deal with in piece meal on claims without a basis.
In result,
i) The above writ petition does not merit admission and is
dismissed as such.
ii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
iii) Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002 is also dismissed.
18.07.2002
Index:Yes
sl
V. KANAGARAJ,J
sl
To
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village
Industries Board, Kuralagam,
Chennai – 108.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles,
and Khadi Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
W.P.No.25498 of 2002
&
W.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002