MOHANAKUMAR T. R. Vs. CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioner and are inter connected. Hence, they were heard together. Exhibits marked in WP (C) No. 21779 of 2003 are referred in this judgment unless specifically mentioned otherwise. Petitioner was working as Deputy Secretary in the respondent Rubber Board which is a statutory authority constituted under the Rubber Act, 1947 for development of rubber industry. He applied for the post of Secretary along with various other persons. The first rank holder was selected and his selection was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that as per the notification published maximum age fixed for the candidate at the time of application was 45, the first rank holder exceeded the above age limit and, therefore, the selection was illegal. The above contention was accepted by this Court by judgment in OP No. 13652 of 1998 (Ext. P1 in WP (C) No. 25070 of 2005). The contention of the Rubber Board was that even though age was relaxable in the case of Rubber Board employees, that was omitted to be mentioned in the advertisement. The learned Single Judge held that when an advertisement mentions a particular maximum age, the candidates who crossed that age cannot be appointed as several persons might not have applied considering the age prescribed in the advertisement and if such appointment is allowed, it will be a fraud on the public. Therefore, selection of the third respondent was set aside and the petitioner who was second rank holder was directed to be appointed. Appeals were filed against the above judgment. A Division Bench of this Court even though stayed the above judgment, by Ext. P3 judgment the writ appeal was dismissed. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the appeal as Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 1999. Meanwhile, disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner and he challenged that action by filing OP No. 26416 of 2002. Before disposal of the above writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal (Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 1999) by Ext. P1 Order with the following observation:

(2.) A Board meeting was convened to be held on 04/12/1999. Petitioner, by Ext. P5 issued notice to all members of the Board that without a duly appointed Secretary, such Board meeting cannot be held. He is also alleged to have informed some of the Board members over the phone that they should not attend the meeting. Two Board members have written complaints by Exts. P17(a) and P17(b). The minutes of the Board meeting is produced as Ext. P7. The petitioner was charge sheeted for 13 serious misconducts. Petitioner challenged the charge sheet. The learned Judge by judgment in OP No. 8118 of 2000 (Ext. P8) held that charge Nos. 4, 5 and 13 are relating to matters connected with the case pending in the Supreme Court and, therefore, those charges were quashed. Enquiry was conducted in respect of the other charges. On the basis of the findings in the enquiry, disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The Appellate Authority modified the order by order dated 19/06/2001. The order of dismissal was set aside and punishment was changed to reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years. It was also ordered that he will not earn any increment during the said period of three years. 75% of the backwages were also ordered to be paid to him. Then, the petitioner filed OP No. 20864 of 2001. It was found by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment in OP No. 20864 of 2001 (Ext. P9) that some of the charges relating to publication of reports in the newspapers etc. is defamatory to the Chairman as there was likelihood of bias on the part of the appellate authority, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority. It is also stated in the judgment that no views are expressed regarding the merits of those misconducts as they have to be considered by the appellate authority. Again, the Appellate Authority considered the matter and passed an order similar to the previous order.

(3.) Again, petitioner challenged that order and by Ext. P11 judgment in OP No. 26416 of 2002, the learned Single Judge found that charge Nos. 6, 7 and 9 relate to use of abusive language and preventing the Chairman and Board members from addressing the board members etc. and, therefore, findings on charge Nos. 6, 7 and 9 of the disciplinary authority were quashed. Charge Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are as follows: