Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.AYYAMPERUMAL versus THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.Ayyamperumal v. The Executive Committee of - Writ Petition No.20580 of 2000 [2003] RD-TN 755 (8 September 2003)



In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 08/09/2003

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice A.K.RAJAN

Writ Petition No.20580 of 2000


V.Ayyamperumal ..... Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Executive Committee of
Directors (Appellate Authroity)
Taminadu Cements Corporation Ltd.
L.L.A. Building
735 Annasalai
Chennai.2.
2. The Chairman and Managing Direictor
Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd.
L.L.A.Building, 735, Anna Salai
Chennai.2. ..... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.

For petitioner : Mr.M.Balaasubramanian

For respondents : Mr.R.Viduthalai

:O R D E R



The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents comprised in the Final Order in No.2214/A1/99 dated 06.04.2000 of the second respondent removing the petitioner from service, and the Appellate Order of the first respondent in Lr.No.2214/A1/99 dated 06.0 7.2000, quash both the impugned orders as illegal and arbitrary in nature, and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits effective from the date of his suspension.

2. The petitioner was appointed on 31.10.1968 as Maistry (Grade II) in the respondent Corporation, he was promoted periodically and promoted as Assistant Manager (Finance); in all he was put in 32 years of service; while so, on 01.09.1999 an order of suspension was passed suspending him from service due to certain serious omissions and commissions in the settlement of claims of the Clearing Agent. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and second show cause notice was given on 07.10.1999 with the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.19260 of 1999 and this Court by an order dated 03.12.1999 directing the respondent to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner. Subsequent to that impugned order was passed on 06.04.2000 thereby removing the petitioner from service with effect from 03.09.1999. Thereafter the petitioner presented an appeal as per the rules, to the first respondent, and the appeal was dismissed by an order dated 06.07.2000 by the very same person who passed the first impugned order dated 06.04.2000.

3. Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appal was disposed of by the appellate authority who passed the order dated 06.07.2000. This is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

4. Heard Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The appeal was dismissed by the three members committee in which, admittedly the person who passed the order dated 06.04.2000 was also a member and he participated in the proceedings of the appeal committee. As such the said procedure is not legal and it is ab initio void as it violates the priciples of natural justice that no person shall decide his own case. Hence, the order passed on 06.07.2000 in appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Corporation to dispose the same afresh.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and he has to retire on 31.05.2003. Therefore, the matter need not be remitted back and the Court itself can decide the other aspects also.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with respect to similar charges against some other persons, the charges framed against those persons were dropped. Therefore, charges framed against the petitioner herein may also be dropped. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained at this point of time. The petitioner is entitled to raise all these points before the appellate authority and the petitioner is entitled to file an application before the appellate authority with regard to subsequent developments by way of additional grounds, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When such application is filed before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall consider the same and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

8. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, he is at liberty to approach this Court by way of writ petition. No costs.

Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

kvsg

To

1. The Executive Committee of Directors (Appellate Authroity) Taminadu Cements Corporation Ltd. L.L.A. Building 735 Annasalai Chennai.2. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd. L.L.A.Building, 735, Anna Salai Chennai.2.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.