Chief Executive Officer and Another vs S.T. Ganesan and Another

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—Tamil Nadu Khadi and Industries Board are the appellants. The present writ appeal is filed against the order of

the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No. 9788 of 2010, dated 11.04.2011, granting the relief to the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent herein,

by directing the appellants herein/respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition, to settle the subsistence allowance payable to the 1st respondent herein

during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is seen from the

orders passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 12640 of 2000, dated 29.11.2004, that in respect of an order passed by the 2nd respondent

herein, namely the Secretary to Government Handloom, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 10.07.2000, confirming the order of removal,

dated 15.10.1999, passed by the 1st appellant herein, this Court held that since due procedures and rules were not properly followed by the

Enquiry Officer, the entire proceedings stood vitiated. In the circumstances, this Court set aside the order of punishment made by the 2nd

respondent herein in G.O.Ms. No. 115 dated 10.07.2000 and directed the appellants herein to conduct fresh enquiry against the 1st respondent

herein, if they so desired and the same shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 1st

respondent herein was also directed to cooperate, in the event of enquiry being held. Aggrieved by the said order in W.P. No. 12640/2000, dated

29.11.2004, the 1st appellant herein preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 1115 of 2007 and by order, dated 28.04.2008, a Division Bench of this

Court confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.

In view of the order of this Court setting aside the order of removal and permitting the appellants to conduct the enquiry afresh, as per

Regulation 31(d) of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board''s Service Regulations, the 1st respondent was to be treated as one kept

under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.

In the face of the provisions of the above said Regulation, the 1st respondent herein sought for payment of subsistence allowance. However, by

proceedings dated 18.01.2008, the 1st appellant herein, namely the Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Board, informed the 1st

respondent herein that he was not entitled for subsistence allowance as per Regulation 31(d) of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries

Board''s Service Regulations. Thereafter, on 27.06.2008, the 1st appellant herein took up the enquiry proceedings, by appointing an Enquiry

Officer. The said proceedings were subsequently challenged by the 1st respondent in W.P. (MD) No. 6235 of 2009 and it is stated to be pending

before this Court.

Considering the fact that during the pendency of enquiry proceedings he was not favoured with subsistence allowance, the 1st respondent filed

W.P. (MD) No. 9788 of 2010 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings of the 1st appellant herein, dated 18.01.2008. Rejecting his

request for grant of subsistence allowance, considering the fact that the order of dismissal was already set aside and the 1st respondent herein was

kept under suspension, learned Single Judge held that subsistence allowance need be paid to him. Learned Single Judge also pointed out that while

it is open to the appellants herein to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent, that would not be a ground for rejecting subsistence

allowance to the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellants.

Except for contending that the 1st respondent is not cooperating in the enquiry proceedings, no substantial issue is raised in the writ appeal.

Ironically, if at all one can see any substantial issue raised in this appeal, it is only in Ground No. 5, which reads as under:

The learned Judge ought to have seen that there was no urgency for passing final orders as the 1st respondent had been removed from service

from 1999 and as per the orders of this Hon''ble Court fresh enquiry had been pending since 2008.

We do not understand how the appellant could see it as not an urgent case for passing final orders, when this Court had already set aside the order

of removal in W.P. No. 12640 of 2000 as early as on 29.11.2004, which order was also confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.

1115/2007.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that subsequent to the filing of the present appeal, an order of dismissal was passed on

10.08.2011 against the 1st respondent and hence he is not entitled for any relief. We do not find any justifiable reason to accept this plea of the

appellants herein, considering the fact that as on the date of filing of the writ appeal, there was no order passed against the 1st respondent. In any

event, this Court had taken note of the earlier circumstance of setting aside the order of removal and the liberty given to the appellants herein to

proceed further. In the background of those facts, we find that the view of the learned Single Judge in directing the appellants to grant subsistence

allowance payable to the 1st respondent during the period of suspension merits acceptance and there is no illegality in it. It may be relevant to note

that even under Regulation 31(d) of the Appellant Board''s Regulations, once the order of removal/dismissal is set aside and fresh enquiry is to be

taken up, the delinquent officer has to be treated as one kept under suspension from the date of original order of removal/dismissal, until further

orders of the appointing authority. In the circumstances, the appellants are directed to release the subsistence allowance payable to the 1st

respondent, without any further delay, within a period of six weeks from today. With the above direction, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No

costs. Connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2011 is also dismissed.