Saravanakumar vs. The Managing Director

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that he cannot be penalized twice for the same act is unsustainable. The initial order dated 29.09.2018, imposing a fine, was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and was subsequently superseded by a show cause notice dated 04.10.2018. This show cause notice was issued after the respondents realized the earlier order was procedurally flawed. The Court found that the impugned order dated 01.11.2018, placing the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry, was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain and considering his explanation. Regarding the alleged discrimination between the petitioner and the supervisor, Mr. Ganesh, the Court stated it was unaware of the reasons for the supervisor's treatment and that the decision to suspend pending inquiry is within the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension and dismissed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, a salesman at a TASMAC outlet, was found selling liquor above the fixed price during a surprise check. Initially, the Manager, TASMAC, Virudhunagar District, imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- plus 18% GST on 29.09.2018 without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. This order was challenged. Subsequently, the third respondent issued a show cause notice on 04.10.2018, superseding the earlier order, alleging that the petitioner sold liquor above the government-fixed price, committed misconduct, and refused to sign a statement. Pending inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 01.11.2018, which is the impugned order under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order of suspension dated 01.11.2018 is bad in law and mala fide, given that a fine was already imposed by an earlier order dated 29.09.2018 for the same act? 2. Whether the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination, as a supervisor, Mr. Ganesh, was also found guilty of misconduct but was not placed under suspension pending inquiry, despite a show cause notice being issued to him? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is bad in law and mala fide because a fine had already been imposed for the same offense. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that there was discrimination, as the supervisor, Mr. Ganesh, who was also implicated, was not suspended pending inquiry, while the petitioner was. The petitioner relied on the principle of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, which was initially violated by the order dated 29.09.2018. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents, through their standing counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's reasoning implies that the respondents likely contended that the initial order was a procedural error rectified by the subsequent show cause notice and suspension pending inquiry.