Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 11 January 2022

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: A. Subramanian, former Assistant Manager (Special Grade‑B) in the Industrial Canteen of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd (NLC).
  • Respondents: 1) Chief Manager/Personnel/Mine‑1 (Appellate Authority), NLC; 2) Senior Manager/Personnel/Mine‑1 (Disciplinary Authority), NLC; 3) Deputy Manager/Personnel/Mine‑1, NLC; 4) NLC represented by its Chairman & Managing Director.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash two disciplinary orders – Proc.No.7920/DA/CGM/M‑II/2006 dated 22‑01‑2009 (second respondent) and Lr.No.CM/P & A/App. Authority/2009 dated 24‑04‑2009 (first respondent) – and to reinstate petitioner with service benefits.
  • Background: petitioner appointed 09‑11‑1989, promoted to Assistant Manager (Special Grade‑B). In 1993 a charge memo alleged false educational certificate; disciplinary enquiry resulted in stoppage of next increment (order 21‑06‑1997). Promotion to Assistant Manager, Grade‑I effective 01‑06‑1998. Subsequent criminal complaint led to suspension (17‑08‑1999) and anticipatory bail (13‑08‑1999). Various writs filed (1999, 2006, 2008) challenging suspension and disciplinary actions.
  • Key allegations in the present disciplinary proceedings: petitioner allegedly gave false date of birth (claimed 04‑01‑1963 vs. alleged 21‑08‑1954) to obtain eight‑year service extension; alleged submission of false transfer certificate. Respondent relied on school registers, signatures, and testimony of former classmates. Petitioner produced birth certificate from Chennai Corporation, medical book of mother, and argued signatures differed.
  • Enquiry Officer’s findings (as per respondent’s report): signatures on transfer certificate and other documents matched petitioner; concluded date of birth is 21‑08‑1954; recommended removal from service.
  • Petitioner contended that documents pertained to another individual named A. Subramanian, that parents’ names coincided but were not his, and that forensic comparison was not conducted.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside both the impugned order of the second respondent (Proc.No.7920/DA/CGM/M‑II/2006 dated 22‑01‑2009) and the order of the first respondent (Lr.No.CM/P & A/App. Authority/2009 dated 24‑04‑2009).
  • Retired District Judge P. Ganesan (No. 778, 4th Cross Street, Kahithapuram, Chennai 600 117, Cell 9600045571) is appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh, detailed enquiry.
  • The matter is remitted to the appointed Enquiry Officer, who shall give both parties opportunity to produce documents; respondents may object to any document deemed irrelevant.
  • The Enquiry Officer must issue a report within 12 weeks of receipt of the order; remuneration of Rs 1,00,000 is fixed, to be borne equally by petitioner and respondent and payable immediately after summons.
  • NLC must pass its final order within three months of receiving the Enquiry Officer’s report; petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement until that final order is issued.
  • No costs awarded; parties directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Topics: Employment Law, Public Sector Disciplinary Proceedings