1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.14116 of 2009
N.Karunanidhi …Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Agricultural
Productions-cum-Secretary to Government,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Secretary,
Tami Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the Charge Memo No.A.4/4795/03 dated
18.06.2004 issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam,
the 3rd respondent herein and the order of dismissal in G.O. (3D)
No.82, dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural
Productions-cum-Secretary to Government, the 1st respondent herein
and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to
extend all service terminal benefits to the petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Sampathkumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Ravi Kumar,
1 and 3 Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
Challenging the Charge Memo No.A.4/4795/03 dated
18.06.2004 issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam,
the 3rd respondent herein and the order of dismissal in G.O. (3D)
No.82, dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural
Productions-cum-Secretary to Government, the 1st respondent herein,
quash the same and for consequential direction, directing the 1st
respondent to extend all service terminal benefits to the petitioner, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Agricultural Officer in
the year 1982 and was rendering his sincere service to the entire
satisfaction of his superiors for the past 25 years. Although, he
married one Kalaiselvi on 8.2.1980 under the Hindu Customs and a
daughter was born through her, later on, she refused to return to his
matrimonial home even after several counselling by the elders of both
the families and also refused to extend the conjugal life. While so,
after waiting for long period till 2000, the petitioner filed a Divorce
Petition No.1/2000 before the Sub-Court, Chidambaram and since the
said Kalaiselvi did not appear before the said Court, the petitioner
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
obtained an ex-parte divorce decree.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that however, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam, the 3 rd
respondent herein issued a Charge Memo with a single charge stating
that the petitioner has performed the second marriage with one Piari
which is running contrary to Rule 19(1)(111) of Tamil Nadu
Government Servants Conduct Rules. Subsequently, one
Mr.Sethuraman, Deputy Director (Agriculture) was appointed as
Enquiry Officer, who after enquiry came to a conclusion that the
charge of marrying Piari was not established. On the basis of the
report of the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 23.02.2005, the Joint
Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam dropped the charges stating the
reason that the alleged charge levelled against the petitioner was not
proved.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit
that though the charge of second marriage with Piari was dropped
after enquiry by the Additional Secretary to Government, the
Government thereafter, has taken up the matter suo motu and without
even issuing any charge memo or holding any enquiry and that without
even giving any opportunity whatsoever to give his explanation,
wrongly passed an order of dismissal from service on 09.06.2009.
http://www.judis.nic.in
When the petitioner has disproved the charge memo dated 18.06.2004
4
issued against him by participating in the enquiry before the Enquiry
Officer and when the Enquiry Officer also has satisfactorily accepted
the case of the petitioner that there was no such marriage took place
with the said Piari, without even setting aside that charge memo and
without even issuing any fresh charge memo on any fresh cause
brought to the notice of the respondents, the service of the petitioner
from the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer cannot be dismissed, it is
pleaded.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that the said Piari also took part in the enquiry and deposed that no
such marriage as alleged has taken place with the petitioner. When
the said Piari has stated that she has not performed second marriage
with the petitioner and she was only assisting his aged parents, the
Enquiry Officer accepted the case of the petitioner and based on the
report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority also has
dropped the charge. While the said Piari who is said to have married
the petitioner as a second wife has also participated in the enquiry and
denied the contract of second marriage, the impugned order of
dismissal ought not to have been passed.
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents 1 and 3.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
7. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 3 submitted that after the petitioner was charged
with an allegation of being performed second marriage with one Piari,
an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that
no such second marriage with Piari has taken place. After sometimes,
the said Piari submitted a petition to Legal Aid Forum, Chidambaram
stating that she wanted to make a compromise so as to live together
with her husband N.Karunanithi, the petitioner herein. In view of the
above development, a notice was served on 13.3.1995 informing the
petitioner to attend an enquiry scheduled to be held on 17.3.1995.
But the petitioner did not turn up for the enquiry that shows that he
had no evidence to disprove the allegation mentioned in the notice
with regard to contract of second marriage with Piari when his first
wife Kalaiselvi was alive. That apart, one another person has given a
promissory note in favour of Piari, W/o.Karunanidhi for having
borrowed money to the tune of Rs.2500/- from Piari that also shows
that the petitioner has performed the second marriage with Piari. It is
also seen that the petitioner also in his letter dated 05.8.2004 has
requested the Agricultural Development Officer, Kollidom to change
the nominations in the Service Register of the individual in favour of
the following individuals, namely, 1. K.Piari, Wife, 45 years; 2.
K.Charles (B.Sc. Agri) Son 20 Years; 3. K.Rechal, daughter 18 years;
and 4. K.Rochchana, daughter, 15 years. It shows that at the time of
http://www.judis.nic.in
the application, his son was studying B.Sc. Agriculture. Therefore, it
6
was considered that the petitioner should have performed the second
marriage with Piari during 1984 and given birth to children through
Piari.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents 1 and 3 further submitted that since it is clearly proved
that the petitioner has performed the second marriage with Piari
during 1984, while the marriage with the first wife Kalaiselvi was
subsisting, a Charge Memo dated 18.6.2004 was issued to the
petitioner by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam based on
the following documents, namely, a. The letter No. Nil dated 13.3.95
to attend the enquiry; b. A Promissory Note dated 22.10.1993 given
by S/o.Sivanesan of Kumaratchi Village in favour of Piari; 3. The letter
dated 05.08.2004 of the applicant addressed to the Agricultural
Development Officer, Kollidam and d. The Voter List issued during
1999 for Chidambaram Assembly Constituency. It was found that the
petitioner had contracted the second marriage during the life time of
his first wife Kalai Selvi and through the second wife, he has given
birth to four children. Therefore, it was held that Piari who appeared
before the Enquiry Officer at the first instance has given a false
information. Moreover, though the decree of divorce dated
28.06.2001 was passed by the Sub-Court, Chidambaram against
Tmt.Kalaiselvi for not attending the Court was produced, since the
http://www.judis.nic.in
children born to the petitioner and Piari were aged about 20, 18 and
7
15 respectively, namely, K.Charles, K.Rechal and K.Rochchana, it goes
to show that the petitioner had really contracted the second marriage
during the life time of Kalai Selvi and hence, the impugned order has
been passed.
9. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
appears that Mrs.Piari was initially married to one Ismail, native of
B.Muttlur, who died while he was serving in a foreign country and
thereafter, the petitioner engaged her as a daily labour to look after
his family and after getting divorce from his first wife Kalaiselvi on
28.06.2001, he got married the said Piari. Therefore, the impugned
order proceeding against the petitioner, dismissing him from service
without issuing any notice or charge memo followed by holding enquiry
is unknown to law. When the petitioner has disputed the charge that
he was not given any opportunity to explain before the Enquiry Officer
that he got married the said Piari only after obtaining divorce on
28.06.2001, merely on the basis of a letter issued to the Legal Aid
Forum, Chidambaram stating that Tmt.Piari wanted to make a
compromise to live with the petitioner cannot be accepted that she
married the petitioner during the life time of Kalai Selvi without there
being any enquiry there on. Therefore, the impugned order of
http://www.judis.nic.in
dismissal is liable to be set aside.
8
T.RAJA, J.
tsi
11. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the
Charge Memo No.A.4/4795/03 dated 18.06.2004 issued by the Joint
Director, the 3rd respondent herein and the order of dismissal in G.O.
(3D) No.82, dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner of
Agriculture Productions-cum-Secretary to Government, the 1st
respondent herein are set aside. The respondents are directed to pay
the retirement benefits to the petitioner by sending a pension
proposal. No costs.
06.02.2019
tsi
To
1. The Commissioner of Agriculture
Productions-cum-Secretary to Government,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Secretary,
Tami Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
W.P.No.14116/2009
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
http://www.judis.nic.in