M BALAKRISHNAN Vs. CORPORATION OF MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioners were employees of the Madurai municipal Corporation, while they were so employed, they were suspended in the year 1979, after an investigation, which had shown that there was mal-practice in the issue of papers to the printers for printing purposes and the corporation, had found that the petitioners were instrumental in causing loss to the corporation, which is now said to be to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- In the charge sheet filed in the criminal court, the amount however was shown as rs. 60,000/- That charge sheet was filed in the criminal court against the petitioners and others, on the ground that by issuing the stock in excess, the petitioners were instrumental in causing loss to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- THE first Information Report was given on 21. 2. 1980 in Crime No. 7 of 1980, against 18 persons including six printers. On that basis two cases in CC. Nos. 258 and 482 of 1983 were filed. THE charge sheet in the criminal case was filed on 11. 4. 1983. In those criminal cases, summons were issued on 29. 9. 1984, to P. W. 1, who is the accountant of the Corporation and who had investigated the excess billing, cheating etc. He was examined six months later, after eight adjournments. Though he was examined in chief on 25. 3. 1985, for 9 months thereafter he did not appear and thereafter for one year till 1987 he did not appear. Further from 26. 8. 87 to 12. 4. 1991, for four years also he did not appear. P. W. 1 was never made available for cross examination, as he, during pendency of those cases, died on 25. 4. 1991.

(2.) THE petitioners approached this court in Crl. OPs. 2423 and connected matters of 1991 and sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings inter alia , on the ground of inordinate delay. This court by an elaborate order dated: 20. 11. 1992 allowed those petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. While disposing the petitions it was observed:- Hence I am of the firm view that in view of the inordinate and inexplicable delay of 11 years and in view of the facts that the petitioners attended the court for more than 340 hearing dates and the evidence of P. W. 1 was not completed and considering the nature of the charge and the harassment to the petitioners it would not be in the interests of justice to permit the prosecution to continue as the delay has caused great prejudice and denial of justice to the petitioners. This is one such case where th e constitutional guarantee of speedy trial and fair and reasonable procdure has been violated and that the petitioners are entitled to unconditional release'.

(3.) ON the facts and circumstances of these cases, it is not possible to accept the submissions so made by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The Corporation as seen from the records, had caused the investigation to be made way back in the year 1979, for which the petitioners were also suspended. There was no impediment to the employer taking disciplinary proceedings against them, immediately thereafter. The improper acts on the part of the petitioners are alleged to have been committed between 1. 4. 1971 and 25. 1. 1979. The employer Corporation waited till 21. 2. 1980, even to file a first information report. Even thereafter, charge sheet was not filed till 11. 4. 1983. There was thus absolutely no impediment for the 1st respondent/corporation to issue charge memos. As has been now done, even in the year 1979 or 1980, and conduct the enquiry. It was wholly unnecessary for the corporation to have waited for several months to file a First Information report, wait for three more years, for the charge sheet to be filed in the criminal case: continue to wait till such time as the criminal proceedings were concluded with the quashing of those proceedings by this court in the year 1991, and even thereafter wait for one and half more years before issuing the impugned charge memos. 7 -A. Further, the respondent-Corporation was fully aware of the instructions, which had been issued by the Government by which it had directed the employer to take simultaneous action. It was therefore not necessary at all for the Corporation, to have waited for the criminal porceedings to commence or conclude, if it was the view of the Corporation that an independent enquiry was necessary. Had it been the view of the Corporation that the criminal proceedings would decide the fate of the petitioners one way or other and mere was no necessity to hold departmental enquiry, one could understand the conduct of the corporation in waiting for the out come of the criminal porceedings. The Corporation, however, could not have even when there was no impediement to hold the enquiry, chosen not to hold such enquiry, and after the protracted criminal-proceedings prolonged by reason of its own Accountant, and commissioner not being available for tendering evidence before the criminal court, come up with the charge memos. ONe and half years after criminal proceeding was quashed by this court. This court while quashing the order of suspension had only observed that if the respondents have any further rights to proceed in the matter, it was open to them to take such action as is permissible in law. The action now taken by the respondent is impersissible in law.