R.GEETABAI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 23.6.2003, to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the first respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was serving as Senior Assistant in the Namakkal Branch office of the first respondent-Corporation, she had to deal with a loan application made by M/s Madurai Borewells represented by its Proprietor Mr.S.P.Thangaraj. The said application mentioned that the purpose of loan was to purchase an Air Compressor. Therefore, the loan amount was arrived at Rs.7.70 lakhs after thorough appraisal by the Branch Manager, Assistant Branch Manager, Finance Officer and Loan Administrative Officer. For due recovery of the said amount, 100% collateral security of the immovable property was also insisted upon and therefore the beneficiary has also offered 2 acres of land in Survey No.92/3, Kailasapalayam, Velmurugan Nagar within the limit of Tiruchengode Municipality. On verification, the said collateral security was also found to be in order by the officers including the Loan Administrative Officer, who is competent to decide the issue regarding the solubility and worthiness of the securities offered by the beneficiaries. After the said process, the consequential process was also entertained by the petitioner only at the instance and compulsion made by the Branch Manager and Loan Administrative Officer. In other words, it was pleaded that the petitioner hardly had any say except to obey the orders of the senior officers. Further, for one single transaction, one charge was broken into several pieces and 14 overlapping charges were made against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo dated 24.8.98, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation. Immediately on receipt of the said charge memo, a detailed explanation for about 8 pages denying all the allegations and substantiating the sequence of facts was sent to the first respondent. The petitioner also, in her explanation, specifically pleaded that the charge memo issued failed to contain the particulars about the documents relied on by the Corporation and the witnesses to be examined by the Management, etc. After the said explanation was found not satisfactory to the disciplinary authority, an enquiry officer was appointed to proceed against the petitioner. The enquiry officer, on completion of enquiry, submitted his report holding that all the charges, except the first charge, levelled against the petitioner stood proved.

(3.) WHILE arguing against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, it was submitted by Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated on the ground of non-disclosure of the list of documents together with the list of witnesses in the charge memo, especially when all the charges were denied by the petitioner in her detailed explanation. When the immediate superior officer to the employee was appointed as an enquiry officer, no fair and proper justice can be expected. Further, the first respondent, reproducing the enquiry officer's report, miserably failed to appreciate the findings given by the enquiry officer and in the original order of removal, it is nowhere possible to find the application of mind of the first respondent while reaching the conclusion of removing the petitioner from service. When the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of removal, preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors, the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal. However, the order in appeal has been signed by the original authority, namely, the Managing Director, who had initially passed the order of removal which was the subject matter of appeal. When an order of removal passed by the original authority viz., the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited was the subject matter of appeal before the Board of Directors, it is highly unimaginable for the very same authority to form part of the Board of Directors while hearing the appeal of the petitioner. Even the order dismissing the petitioner's appeal also shows that the original authority has signed the order in appeal, which shows that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal is only an empty formality. Therefore, the legal consequence and the purpose of appeal has been defeated, inasmuch as the signatory to the original order of removal and the appellate order are one and the same. Both the orders of the original authority and the appellate authority are silent about the reasons for imposing the major penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that the conduct of enquiry, submission of report thereof and the imposition of punishment are all violative of the principles of natural justice and as well violative of Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. Finally, it was argued that when the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant under the control of the Branch Manager, her performance and her meritorious services were appreciated by the Chief Executive on so many occasions. Further, the loan amount received by M/s Madurai Borewells was settled in full on 27.3.2000 i.e., well in advance, but the management representative failed to consider this vital aspect. If, as alleged by the respondents, the promoters were benefited by the alleged irregularities made by the petitioner, the borrower would not have settled their loan account in full that too before the scheduled date. Therefore, the Managing Director-original authority ought not to have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed lapses or negligence when there was no loss caused to the first respondent-Corporation. Inasmuch as, he pleaded, at the risk of repetition, it may be stated that the promoters of M/s Madurai Borewells have settled the loan account and received the collateral documents. Under these circumstances, imposing the punishment of removal is absolutely unwarranted and in any event, the same is disproportionate to the charges said to have been proved against the petitioner. On this basis he prayed for setting aside the impugned order by granting the relief as prayed for.