SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

N.Karunanidhi vs The Commissioner Of Agricultural on 6 February, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation