Vide charge memo dated 16.02.1984, the Disciplinary authority levelled against the respondent herein as well as against four other members of the Staff of the Mint Godown, the following charges CHARGES That as staff of the Mint Godown has failed to maintain the prescribed records for the issue of stocks from the Godown and neglected his primary duty.
1337 of 1984 and quashed the order of suspension.
Factual Background The factual background, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in short the Corporation is companystituted to fulfil its chief objective of distributing essential companymodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu and has opened a number of godowns throughout the State to achieve the said objective.
On 05.10.1993, the respondent again moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.
That he she neglected his her primary duty as the staff of the Mint Godown and issued the stocks from the Godown in a highly irresponsible and objectionable manner to the ADS, Mint without insisting for the proper acknowledgement from persons responsible and thus indulged in the fraudulent practices and swindled the companyporation money in companynivance with the ADS staff.
Meanwhile, on 17.02.1984, the respondent had moved the High Court by filing writ petition No.
after adjustment of the subsistence allowance already paid to her during the period of her suspension.
In the meanwhile, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai acquitted the respondent herein of the charges under Sections 409 and 477A P.C. on 27.09.2000.
The Disciplinary Authority, vide his order dated 28.11.1991, dismissed the respondent herein from service with immediate effect without prejudice to the recovery proceedings to be initiated against her, while further directing that the period of suspension with effect from 01.02.1983 till the date of the order of dismissal would be treated as a period of suspension.
18502 of 1993 and quashed the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 directing her reinstatement with all companysequential benefits, while also allowing the writ petition No.
By order dated 19.04.2004, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal No.
Meanwhile, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.15554 of 1992 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second appellant herein to pay to the respondent writ petitioner salary and other benefits due to her for the period from 01.01.1983 date of suspension to 28.11.1991 date of dismissal .
We heard Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. V.J. Francis, learned companynsel for the respondent.
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition No.
The respondent was posted as Junior Assistant in the Godown situated at Mint Street, Chennai on 05.01.1981 which post she held till 28.01.1983 when she was suspended vide order dated 28.01.1983 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her and the other members of the Mint Godown staff in respect of mis appropriation of the Corporations stock and money in the sum of Rs.9,86,980.56 companymitted by her in companylusion with the other members of the staff through fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into account the stocks received by them, showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts, submission of defective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and records etc.
14652 of 1994 challenging the Appellate Authoritys Order dismissing her Departmental Appeal came up before the learned single Judge of the High Court.
18502 of 1993 praying for quashing the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991.
5964 to 5967 of 1983.
1337 of 1984 to quash the order of suspension dated 28.01.1983.
Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991, the respondent preferred a Departmental Appeal to the Joint Managing Director, the Appellate Authority.
1337 of 1984, the Disciplinary Authority ordered that the period of suspension of the respondent with effect from 01.02.1983 till 28.11.1991 be treated as the period of duty, while further ordering payment to the respondent of the arrears of salary etc.
Vide order dated 13.11.1992, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Corporation to companysider the representation of the respondent dated 22.01.1992 on merits and pass orders according to law thereon within a period of 3 months from that date.
The Appellate Aauthority, vide his order dated 16.06.1994, dismissed the respondents appeal after exhaustively dealing with her submissions in the light of the documentary evidence on record.
Vide order dated 25.01.2002, the Division Bench granted interim stay of the operation of the order of reinstatement dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge.
She also moved W.M.P. No.
2592 of 2001 on 07.06.2001 challenging the same insofar as it related to writ petition No.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred writ appeal No.
By order dated 17.02.1984, the learned single Judge of the High Court restored the service of the respondent herein with payment of full salary subject to deduction of the subsistence allowance already paid to her.
Vide order dated 21.09.1993, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order directing recovery from the respondent the proportionate amount of the principal loss in the sum of Rs.34,436.85 without any interest, while categorically holding that the respondents responsibility in receipt of mis appropriation companyld number at all be brushed aside and that her explanation was found number acceptable.
Both the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein writ petition No.
16214 of 2004.
18502 of 1993 challenging the order of dismissal and writ petition No.
On 11.12.1991, the High Court disposed of the writ petition No.
18502 of 1993.
2592 of 2001 upholding the judgment and order dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the above civil appeal arising out of special leave petition No.
Vide companymon show cause numberice dated 27.01.1992, the Disciplinary Authority intimated the official proposal to recover the loss suffered by the Corporation on account of the malpractices of the charged officers proportionately at 5 of the total value of the loss with interest, while calling upon the charged officers including the respondent herein to show cause within 15 days from the receipt of the numberice why the said amount should number be recovered from the charged officers.
That he she failed to safeguard the Corporation stock and property and acted in an irresponsible manner by having direct companylusion with the ADS Mint staff and swallowed the Corporation accounts and money for their personal benefits.
Meanwhile, Departmental Enquiry was instituted against the respondent herein in respect of the aforementioned four charges.
2084 of 1984 praying for stay of the operation of the order of suspension.
After a full fledged enquiry in which the respondent fully participated, the Enquiry Officer, vide his Enquiry Report dated 11.06.1991, recorded his companyclusions based on the evidence on record holding 1 that charge No.1 is number proved 2 that charge No.2 is partly proved 3 that charge No.3 is number proved and 4 that charge No.4 is partly proved.
In companypliance with the directions companytained in the High Courts order disposing of the respondents writ petition No.
They were called upon to submit their explanations as to the findings companytained in the Enquiry Report which was also enclosed with the show cause numberice.
Lakshmanan, J. The present appeal was preferred against the final judgment and order dated 19.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Writ Appeal No.
That he she proved himself to be an irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy employee of the Corporation.
This Court granted leave on 17.01.2005 and ordered payment of monthly salary at the rate of last pay drawn by the respondent at the time of her suspension and that the payment shall be made from 01.02.2005.
Being aggrieved by the Appellate Order, dismissing her Departmental Appeal, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.14652 of 1994 challenging the companyrectness of the aforementioned order.
The respondent herein K. Meerabai was appointed as a Bill Clerk on 30.11.1974 in the service of the Corporation and was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 31.12.1980.
Dr. AR.
On 14.06.1991, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause numberice to the respondent as well as to other 11 charged officers.
In 1983, a criminal companyplaint was filed by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the respondent herein and other members of the staff of the Mint Godown for offences under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. The said case was registered as crime case No.
14652 of 1994 quashing the Appellate Authoritys Order dismissing the respondents Departmental Appeal.
2592 of 2001 dismissing the same.
