Karuppiah.M vs. The District Manager

Facts

The petitioner, M. Karuppiah, a supervisor at TASMAC, was issued an order by the District Manager, TASMAC, Theni, on January 4, 2021, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- along with GST of Rs. 1800/-. This action was taken because the petitioner was allegedly found selling liquor bottles above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash this order. The petitioner contended that as a supervisor, he could not be held responsible and that the order was passed without a domestic enquiry. The respondent argued that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and did not provide a proper explanation.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order had been passed against the petitioner without conducting a domestic enquiry. The Court referred to its previous order dated December 22, 2020, in a batch of similar writ petitions where impugned orders were quashed for being passed without a domestic enquiry. In those cases, the matters were remitted to the respondent for re-adjudication after conducting a domestic enquiry. Following this precedent, the Court allowed the present writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated January 4, 2021, and directed the respondent to conduct a domestic enquiry and pass final orders in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that disciplinary action, particularly the imposition of penalty, requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including a domestic enquiry, before passing an order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order imposing penalty on the petitioner is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the absence of a domestic enquiry, as per Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Employees' (Disciplinary Control) Regulations, 1989 (impliedly relied upon by the petitioner's counsel). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable as it was passed without conducting a domestic enquiry. He relied on a common order from this Court in similar writ petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos. 6296 of 2020 etc.) where orders imposing penalty were quashed for lack of domestic enquiry. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and called for an explanation, but failed to offer a proper explanation, which led to the passing of the impugned order.