R. Sathyamoorthy vs. The Managing Director

Facts

The petitioner, R. Sathyamoorthy, a Supervisor at a TASMAC shop, was suspended on November 28, 2022, following an inspection. A charge memo was issued on December 19, 2022, for various alleged misconducts, including not attending duty after signing the register, not cooperating with colleagues, and not following fraud prevention rules, leading to revenue loss and reputational damage. The petitioner submitted explanations, participated in an enquiry, and was subsequently imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- along with GST of Rs. 900/-, totaling Rs. 5,900/-, which was remitted on March 16, 2023. Additionally, absent days were treated as 'No Work No Pay' with a censure punishment. The District Manager recommended the petitioner's transfer on March 23, 2023. The Senior Regional Manager recommended reinstatement on April 5, 2023. The petitioner made representations on May 15, 2023, and June 19, 2023, to the Managing Director for reinstatement, which remained unconsidered, leading to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, rather than keeping them pending indefinitely. The non-consideration of the petitioner's representations dated 15.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 by the 1st respondent was deemed a dereliction of duty, justifying the intervention of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case itself, focusing solely on the procedural lapse. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority's failure to consider a representation amounts to dereliction of duty, and the High Court can direct such consideration. The operative direction was to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court confined its decision to the procedural aspect.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 1st respondent (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.) has a duty to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 regarding his reinstatement in service, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, and failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner sought a direction for his reinstatement based on the recommendation of the 2nd respondent and consideration of his pending representations. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, by consenting to the disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage, it can be inferred that they did not contest the procedural aspect of considering the representations.