DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. A. VINAYAGAMOORTHY
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J. -
(1.) Instant writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 22/3/2019, passed in W.P.No.10249 of 2014.
(2.) Facts in brief are as under:-
2.1. Respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Gang Mazdoor, in Highways Department, at Tiruvannamalai Sub Division (South). He was suspended from service, on 8/4/2011, by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways, Construction and Maintaining), Tiruvannamalai, third appellant herein, on the ground that he accompanied a MLA and was campaigning for the MLA in the Elections.
2.2. In his reply, the respondent/writ petitioner stated that since his mother was not well, he had rushed his mother to the Government Hospital, wherein he was informed that if he gets a letter from a local MLA, it will be easy to get an admission, in the Special Ward, in the Government Hospital. He went to the Office of the MLA and he was informed that the MLA had gone out for campaigning. The writ petitioner contacted the P.A to MLA, for getting the recommendation letter. The P.A who took the respondent/writ petitioner to the MLA and obtained the signatures of the MLA on the recommendation letter.
2.3. During the suspension, a domestic enquiry was carried out. The Enquiry Officer, found that charges have been proved. Disciplinary Authority had proposed to give punishment, for stoppage of increment, for a period of three years, with cumulative effect and reinstatement into service.
2.4. In view of the fact that mis-conduct had taken place during the time when the Election process were on, the proposed punishment was forwarded to the District Election Officer, to take an opinion about punishment. District Election Officer, opined that since the nature of charges were grave, respondent may not be reinstated in service and hence he must be dismissed from service.
2.5. Based on the opinion of the District Election Officer, the Divisional Engineer (Highways, Construction and Maintaining), Tiruvannamalai, second respondent, dismissed the respondent from service.
(3.) Being aggrieved, respondent has filed W.P.No.10249 of 2014. Vide, order, dated 22/3/2019. During the hearing, the writ petitioner
filed an affidavit that he shall not repeat the same mistake and will
never campaign for anybody else. The learned Single Judge, on the
basis of punishments imposed on similar charges framed against
other persons, reinstated the respondent in service, without
backwages. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:-
"5. Considering the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the respondent/Department and also taking into consideration of the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner's counsel, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:-
(i). The undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner's counsel is taken on record.
(ii). The proceedings issued by the second respondent in No.Se.Mu.Ka.No.612/2011/Kamukkam, dated 1/4/2014 is quashed.
(iii). The second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner is service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv). The petitioner shall not participate in any of the political activities in future, as undertook by him in the undertaking affidavit.
(v). As per the undertaking affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to claim backwages or continuity of service for the non-working period." ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.