Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M.Velu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, imposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in 2002 and later promoted as Head Clerk in the NDPS Court, Chennai, on 18.04.2019, and was assigned duties as Head Clerk (Property). Allegations arose regarding non-remittance of amounts collected by the petitioner to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to the tune of approximately Rs.15,00,000/-. A charge memo was issued on 01.09.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply on 06.10.2022, attributing the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 28.04.2023 holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority, the second respondent, concurred with the findings and imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner, through counsel, contended that the delay in remittance was due to the pandemic and did not amount to misappropriation; that separate charges were not framed, vitiating the proceedings; that the enquiry officer should have been a witness rather than conducting the enquiry, in violation of principles of natural justice; and that the co-delinquent was exonerated and made a witness, which was unjustified. The respondents contended that the petitioner had utilized the collected money for personal requirements, and only after memos were filed by counsel were registers checked, revealing the collection and subsequent delayed remittance after more than a year in some cases and nearly two years in one case; that the petitioner participated in the enquiry without objection and after considering materials, the charges were proved; and that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal, and no flaw was made out in the enquiry. The court heard the submissions and perused the materials, but the final decision is not recorded in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary proceedings and order of removal from service passed against the petitioner were valid and not violative of principles of natural justice.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 112
W.P.No.38800 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.42012 of 2024
R. Subramanian, G. Arul Murugan
Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram for petitioner; Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy for respondents
1. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai; 2. Principal Judge / Disciplinary Authority, The Principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of removal from service dated 30.11.2023.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned removal order and consequential direction for reinstatement with all service benefits.
Filing Reason
Alleged non-remittance of collected amounts to the RBI leading to disciplinary proceedings and imposition of removal from service.
Previous Decisions
Enquiry officer submitted report on 28.04.2023 holding charges proved; disciplinary authority concurred and imposed punishment of removal from service.
Issues
Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-framing of separate charges, the enquiry officer also being a material witness, and the exoneration of a co-delinquent who was made a prosecution witness.
Whether the punishment of removal from service was justified given the petitioner's explanation that the delay in remittance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and did not amount to misappropriation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the delay in remitting the amounts was solely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and should not be construed as misappropriation.
Petitioner argued that separate charges were not framed, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
Petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer should have been made a witness instead of conducting the enquiry, in violation of principles of natural justice.
Petitioner pointed out that the co-delinquent was exonerated and arrayed as a witness, which could not be sustained.
Respondents contended that the petitioner, as Head Clerk (Property), collected around Rs.15,00,000/- and utilized the money for personal requirements, remitting it only after memos were filed and registers checked, with delays of more than a year and in one case nearly two years.
Respondents submitted that the petitioner participated in the enquiry, gave no objection to the enquiry officer, and after considering materials, the charges were found proved, and the punishment was appropriate; the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal, and no flaw was established.
Judgment Excerpts
the amounts received were not remitted in time and that cannot be construed as misappropriation
the enquiry officer, who ought to have been only made as a witness had been entrusted to enquire into the charges, which is in violation of principles of natural justice
the co-delinquent had been exonerated and had been arrayed as a witness, which is not justifiable and cannot be sustained
the petitioner who was entrusted with the duty as Head Clerk (Property), though had collected money to the tune of nearly Rs.15,00,000/-, had utilised the same for his personal requirements
Procedural History
Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in 2002 and promoted as Head Clerk, NDPS Court, Chennai on 18.04.2019. A charge memo was issued on 01.09.2022 alleging non-remittance of approximately Rs.15,00,000/-. Petitioner submitted reply on 06.10.2022. Enquiry officer was appointed and submitted report on 28.04.2023 holding charges proved. Disciplinary authority concurred and imposed removal from service vide order dated 30.11.2023. Petitioner filed instant writ petition under Article 226 challenging said order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
