The Madras High Court has set aside an order directing the reinstatement of a TASMAC supervisor who had been dismissed from service over allegations of financial irregularities, holding that employees handling government money are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity and honesty.
A division bench of Justices M Dhandapani and N Dilipkumar allowed the State’s challenge to a single-judge order that had quashed the supervisor’s dismissal and directed his reinstatement with back wages and 6 per cent interest.
The bench, in its October 1 order, observed that persons working in governmental organisations and entrusted with public money must maintain high standards of probity, irrespective of the nature of the department in which they serve.
The court noted that the allegations against the employee were serious and involved misappropriation of funds while he was responsible for handling government money.
Discrepancies Found During Inspection
The employee was working as a supervisor with the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation and was posted at liquor shops in Orathanadu Taluk.
During an inspection conducted on November 12, 2014, the department found several discrepancies in the maintenance of the shops and their accounts.
A criminal case was registered against the employee and others under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code. The police subsequently dropped the investigation.
A separate case was also registered after an audit allegedly found a shortage or misappropriation of Rs 1.80 lakh from the sale proceeds.
The department issued a charge memo containing seven charges. Although the employee denied the allegations, a departmental inquiry was conducted and he was eventually dismissed from service.
Single Judge Had Ordered Reinstatement
The employee challenged his dismissal before the High Court. A single judge set aside the punishment and directed his reinstatement with back wages and 6 per cent interest.
The single judge had found the evidence against the employee insufficient and noted that statements recorded during the criminal investigation were inconsistent with the inspection report.
TASMAC challenged that decision before the division bench.
Division Bench Limits Scope of Judicial Review
The division bench noted that the employee had not alleged that the departmental inquiry was conducted contrary to law, that the disciplinary authority lacked jurisdiction or that the findings were perverse on the basis of the material available.
According to the court, the employee’s challenge was primarily based on the non-examination of witnesses and the manner in which documentary material had been appreciated.
The bench held that, in the absence of allegations of bias or mala fides against the inquiry or the inquiry authority, the court could not reassess the merits of the disciplinary proceedings merely to substitute its own view on the findings or the punishment.
The court also found that the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present his case and that the inquiry complied with the principles of natural justice.
It therefore set aside the single-judge order as well as the direction for reinstatement, restoring the disciplinary action taken against the TASMAC supervisor.
