Aringar Anna Sugar Mills Ltd., v. R.Vengatasamy

Order:

¶1In the Government order first read above, orders were issued to for the creation of common cadre system for the officers working in the cooperative and public sector sugar mills and the Director of sugar was permitted to create a common cadre system for the second and third level officers working in the co-operative and public sector sugar Mills duly authorising him to frame necessary rules and regulations for appointment, transfer etc., ....

¶4Government, after careful examination, accept the proposal of Commissioner of Sugar and revive the Common Cadre System in the name of "Tamil Nadu Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills Managerial common cadre system" in the Co-operative and Public Sector Mills.

¶5The Commissioner of sugar is requested to take immediate action with reference to the orders issued in para 4 above and to ensure that the formalities are completed within 60 days and send a report to Government.

¶6The staffing pattern, transfer, confidential report, Recruitment, Qualification, Re-designation of the posts etc. are shown in the Annexure to this order."

¶17The Clause 5 of the annexure in the said Government Order is framed to deal with the cadre authority and it reads as follows: "5. Cadre Authority: The Commissioner of Sugar will be the cadre authority and the cadre authority will decide the recruitment, promotion and transfer of the officers. The confidential report on the officers in A and B grade will be maintained in the office of the common cadre authority. While directly recruiting to the entry level officers posts, all the conditions prescribed by the Government with regard to age at the entry and retirement and age relaxation, communal rotation then and there ordered by the Government is applicable. In respect of promotion to the posts in Grade-B there will not be any limit for entry. For promotion as mentioned above a common seniority will be adopted by the cadre authority for all the above posts. If the date of joining of the two individuals are same, the date of acquiring the requisite qualifications will be taken into account for deciding the seniority in a particular feeder Category. Once the superintendents are promoted as Officer Manager and the Accountant are promoted as Accounts Officer they will be coming under the purview of the Tamil nadu Co-op. & public sector sugar Mills Managerial Common Cadre System. Service conditions stipulated in Special bylaw and standing Orders will be applicable to Grade -C and D. The rules and regulations stipulated to TNCS Act and Rules are applicable to Grade A and B officers."

¶18Above Government Order reveals that the Government has not issued any regulations empowering common cadre authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and the cadre authority will decide the recruitment, promotion and transfer of service. The Government has intentionally not included the power for "disciplinary proceedings". Though Section 75 empowers the Government to issue rules including 'disciplinary proceedings', while constituting certain categories of employees and creating common cadre service, but it has not come forward to empower cadre authority with this power.

¶19The Clause 5 of the regulation is very clear and unambiguous, it state that recruitment, promotion including seniority and transfer shall be made in accordance with Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies and Sugar Mills managerial common cadre system. Service conditions stipulated in Special Bye-law and standing orders will be applicable to C & D cadres. The rules and regulations stipulated in TNCS Act rules are applicable to Grade A and B others. There is no ambiguity to understand clause 5 of the regulations. Since common cadre authority is vested with the power to deal with recruitment, promotions and transfer of service, the regulation issued under G.O.(Ms.)No. 68 is applicable for Grade A and B officers and for other cadres i.e., C & D standing orders and bye laws are applicable to them in the matters of recruitment, promotion and transfer of service. Further to clarify, it has been declared for all other purposes (Except Recruitment, Promotion and Transfer of Service), TNCS Act and rules are applicable. Hence, the writ petitioners are not entitled to seek applicability of disciplinary proceedings prescribed vide Sub-section 3 to 5 of the Section 75 of TNCS Act to them by relying on Clause 5 of the annexure.

¶20Though Sub-section 3 to 5 of Section 75 of the TNCS Act prescribes the procedure for disciplinary proceedings, these provisions are applicable 'subject to rules framed' under Sub-section 1 of Section 75 of the Act. Further it is the discretion of the Government to constitute to common cadre and empowers common cadre authority to deal with matters of Recruitment, Promotion and Transfer and disciplinary proceedings. However, the Government has not empowered common cadre authority with the power of disciplinary proceedings. It is the will of legislature while framing Section 75 of TNCS Act that they delegated power to Government to decide the powers of common cadre authority and the Government has not vested the disciplinary power. As stated in earlier paragraph, the Government is exercising the discretionary power in this regard, and the Government Order is not under the challenge in this writ proceedings.

¶21Now the petitioners claim that, the Government has committed an error of not following the policy declared by the Government under Section 75 of TNCS, Act and the Court shall declare that the disciplinary powers also shall be exercised by the common cadre authority. It is also well settled that the Court cannot provide which is not provided in the statute or rules and the same can be done only by the legislation. It will be useful to refer the judgment in Union of India vs. Priyankan Sharan and another [008 INSC 1022] with regard to power of the Court, while interpreting the provisions of the Act and whether Courts have power to legislate or supply certain provisions when the legislature failed to rectify any error in legislation or regulation or rules etc., It is observed as follows: "23. While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. (See Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain MANU/SC/0381/2000 : (2000)5SCC515 . The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process.

¶24Two principles of construction - one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole - appear to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses there of so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the Legislature. "An intention to produce an unreasonable result", said Danackwerts, L.J. in Artemiou v. Procopiou 1966 1 QB 878, "is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available". Where to apply words literally would "defeat the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a wholly unreasonable result" we must "do some violence to the words" and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v.IRC 1966 AC 557 where at p. 577 he also observed: "this is not a new problem, though our standard of drafting is such that it rarely emerges".

¶25It is then true that, "when the words of a law extend not to an inconvenience rarely happening, but due to those which often happen, it is good reason not to strain the words further than they reach, by saying it is casus omissus, and that the law intended quae frequentius accidunt." "But," on the other hand, "it is no reason, when the words of a law do enough extend to an inconvenience seldom happening, that they should not extend to it as well as if it happened more frequently, because it happens but seldom" (See Fenton v. Hampton 11 Moore, P.C. 345). A casus omissus ought not to be created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity. Where, however, a casus omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence of the legislature, or on the principle quod semel aut bis existit proetereunt legislators, the rule is that the particular case, thus left un provided for, must be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute - Casus omissus etoblivioni datus dispositioni communis juris relinquitur; "a casus omissus," observedBuller, J. in Jones v. Smart (1 T.R. 52), "can in no case be supplied by a court oflaw, for that would be to make laws."

¶26The golden rule for construing wills, statutes, and, in fact, all written instruments has been thus stated: "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further" (See Grey v. Pearson 6 H.L. Cas. 61). The latter part of this "golden rule" must, however, be applied with much caution. "if," remarked Jervis, C.J., "the precise words used are plain and unambiguous in our judgment, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure. But we assume the functions of legislators when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise words used, merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal meaning" (See Abley v. Dale 11, C.B. 378)."

¶22As discussed in earlier paragraph, the claim made by the writ petitioners, that the service conditions referred in Clause 5 of the G.O.

(Ms).No.68 also shall include disciplinary proceedings and same shall be declared by the Court is not permissible. Once regulation is framed without empowering the cadre authority to exercise disciplinary power and the Managing Director, who is the disciplinary authority under rules has not been divested with the power of taking disciplinary proceedings, corollary is the rules already in existence for disciplinary proceedings still holds good and same is applicable. Hence the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the Managing Director is not empowered to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings is not valid, hence the said finding is hereby set aside.

¶23With regard to the merits of the disciplinary proceedings, we have carefully gone through the charges framed against the petitioners in both the cases. The charges are very cryptic and bereft of details, not understandable by the delinquent employee. Further, it has not specifically stated how they were involved in forgery, cheating, other falsification of records and to the extent of loss caused to the Sugar Mill. In the case of N.Gururaja in W.P.No.22702 of 2017, he has challenged the proceedings dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Managing Director of the Sugar Mill, dismissing him from service based on the defective charges framed against him in the departmental enquiry. It is also stated that in the departmental enquiry, no witnesses were examined and only based on the statement recorded from the petitioner, it was held that the charges against him were proved. Consequently, dismissal order was also passed.

¶24It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since no witnesses were examined to prove the charges and purely based on some of the documents produced before the enquiry officer, that too without marking through any witnesses and further without any acceptable evidence to prove the charges, the writ petitioner has been held guilty of charges. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has not committed any offence and he has also disputed various allegations leveled against him, hence order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order of dismissal of service is valid, hence prays to confirm the same.

¶25The learned Standing counsel on behalf of the appellant/ respondent Sugar Mill submitted that the writ petitioner had participated in the domestic enquiry and he has not sough for any supply of documents, only after appointment of enquiry officer, the petitioner had sought for some documents in the year 2017 for the purpose of delaying tactics. He further submitted that, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry was concluded holding that the petitioner is found guilty of charges. He has also not availed the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The principle of natural justice was followed and based on the evidence recorded before the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has issued second show cause notice seeking for the petitioner's reply with regard to the enquiry report and after receiving the second representation from the petitioner, final order of punishment of dismissal was imposed, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner.

¶26We have gone through the report of the enquiry officer to ascertain whether any witnesses were examined in this case and also to verify whether any fair play is adopted in domestic enquiry. The enquiry report revealed that, after collecting the written submission of the delinquent, management was asked to give further reply and based on the reply to the written submission placed before him by the management and without examining any witnesses and without marking any documents, enquiry was concluded. In the concluding paragraph, the enquiry officer stated that he has gone through the entire evidence, the explanation offered by the delinquent, the statement given by the delinquent during the domestic enquiry and the charges leveled against him, he had come to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved.

¶27Further, the enquiry officer deeply analysed the reasons arrived for each charges, for which he has referred the documents placed before him, the explanations offered and held that the explanation given by the delinquent is not acceptable. The enquiry officer also dealt with various documents, but no where it is stated that whether these documents were produced by the Management or by the delinquent.

¶28The learned Single Judge has also considered the entire materials and also submissions made on the side of the Management/ Sugar Mill and more specifically the point that, the petitioner was not availed the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and observed that this submission itself a feeble attempt to make the case of the respondent/ Management. Before us, it was submitted by the respondent/ Management that the writ petitioner has admitted the charges. We have also gone through the records and it reveals that the delinquent has stated that he was not able to maintain the records as per time schedule and he has specifically denied the allegation of misappropriation, making bogus entries, offence of cheating and breach of trust. That being so, detailed consideration by the enquiry officer to find the truth of the charges, shall be done only by way of recording proper evidence.

¶29It is admitted that no management witnesses were examined and only based on the documents produced before him and after enquiring the delinquent, the enquiry officer had arrived to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved simply by comparing documents and explanations given. We are of the view that squarely, by adopting impermissible way and by violating principles of natural justice, enquiry was concluded, hence the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is farse and order passed by the Writ Court quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings is valid.

¶30We have also observed in earlier paragraph that charges framed against the delinquent N.Gururaj is also vague and defective, hence the matter requires, remand to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to issue fresh charges and initiate further proceedings, if any, if he intend to continue disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner, since already a decade has been passed.

¶31As per the writ petitions filed by R.Vengatasamy is concerned, similar type of the charges were framed against him as that of N.Gururaja, the said charge memo has been challenged and he has also filed writ petitions seeking assistance of an advocate for participation in the enquiry and to represent him. It is well settled that unless there is a provision in the Departmental Rules, Service Rules or any other standing orders seeking for conducting the departmental proceedings through an advocate on behalf of the delinquent, same is not permissible. In this case, petitioner has not produced any rules or regulations or statutory order in support of the same, hence we are of the view that seeking prayer for representing his case through an advocate in the departmental proceedings is not permissible.

¶32R.Vengatasamy has also filed writ petition seeking for certain documents, since this Court in the earlier paragraphs had held that the charges have not been properly framed and it is found to be defective and vague, we are of the view that the charge memo and other proceedings are liable to be quashed with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether he further intend to proceed with the departmental proceedings against this petitioner.

¶33R.Vengatasamy has also filed another writ petition challenging his suspension. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that he is under suspension continuously for a longer period, since this Court has quashed the charge memo report and remand back the matter to Disciplinary Authority, necessity for the continuation of suspension of delinquent shall also be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority. It is brought to our knowledge that criminal proceedings are also pending against the R.Vengatasamy, hence the Disciplinary Authority is directed to reconsider the necessity for continuation of suspension within the period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶34In the result, these writ appeals are disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The Managing Director of the Sugar Mill is a Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the common cadre employees of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills Managerial common cadre system.

(ii) The charge memo and other proceedings against the writ petitioners are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to take a call on all these matters with liberty to decide and consider the request of the petitioners regarding reinstatement, cancellation of suspension.

(ii) Based on the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, further proceedings against the writ petitioners may be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶35Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

(G.R.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)

20.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm/ stn To

¶1The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9

¶2The Commissioner of Sugar Mills, State of Tamil Nadu, 696, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai.

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. and

K. RAJASEKAR, J. Lm/ stn

W.A.(MD).Nos.1757 to 1760 of 2023 and 935 of 2023

20.11.2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 22.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.7354, 13393, 13395, 13399, 13400 of 2023 W.A.(MD).No.1757 of 2023 Aringar Anna Sugar Mills Limited, Kurunkulam, Thanjavur Taluk, Represented through the Chief Executive, Pincode – 613 303. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Vs. 1. R. Vengatasamy ... 1st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner 2. Commissioner of Sugar Mills, State of Tamil Nadu, 696, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent/ 1st Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 09.05.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.15709 of 2017 on the file of this Court. W.A.(MD).No.1758 of 2023 Aringar Anna Sugar Mills Limited, Kurunkulam, Thanjavur Taluk, Represented through the Chief Executive, Pincode – 613 303. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Vs. 1. R. Vengatasamy ... 1st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner 2. Commissioner of Sugar Mills, State of Tamil Nadu, 696, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent/ 1st Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 09.05.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.15710 of 2017 on the file of this Court. W.A.(MD).No.1759 of 2023 Aringar Anna Sugar Mills Limited, Kurungulam, Thanjavur Taluk, Represented through the Chief Executive, Pincode – 613 303. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Vs. 1. R. Vengatasamy ... 1st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Tamilnadu, Represented through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9 ... 2nd Respondent/ 1st Respondent 3. Commissioner of Sugar Mills, State of Tamil Nadu, 696, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai. ... 3rd Respondent/ 2nd Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 09.05.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.22597 of 2017 on the file of this Court. W.A.(MD).No.1760 of 2023 Aringar Anna Sugar Mills Limited, Kurunkulam, Thanjavur Taluk, Represented through the Chief Executive, Pincode – 613 303. ... Appellant/ Respondent Vs. 1. R. Vengatasamy ... Respondent/ Writ Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 09.05.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.8167 of 2018 on the file of this Court. W.A.(MD).No.935 of 2023 Aringar Anna Sugar Mills Limited, Kurungulam, Thanjavur Taluk, Represented through the Chief Executive, Tanjore – 613 303. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Vs. 1. N. Gururaja ... 1st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner 2. The Director of Sugar, Registrar of Sugar Mills, No.69, Anna Salai, EVR Periyar Buildings, Nadanam, Chennai -35, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent/ 1st Respondent 3. National Co-operative Sugar Mill, Represented by its Managing Director, B. Mettupatti Village, Alanganallur, Madurai - 625 502. ... 3rd Respondent/ 3rd Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 16.12.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.22702 of 2017 on the file of this Court. For Appellants in all cases : Mr. S. Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For R1 in W.A.(MD).Nos.1757 to 1760 of 2023 : Mr. M.E. Ilango for M/s. Ajmal Associates For R1 in W.A.(MD).No.935 of 2023 : Mr. V. Karthikeyan For R2 in all cases : Mr. A. Kannan Additional Government Pleader ******* COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment made by K.RAJASEKAR, J.) The Chief Executive of Arignar Anna Sugar Mills Limited is the appellant in these appeals. One R.Vengatasamy, writ petitioner in W.P. (MD).Nos.15709, 15710, 22597 of 2017 and 8167 of 2018 and N.Gururaja, writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.22702 of 2017, have approached this Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. N.Gururaja, approached this Court challenging the final orders of dismissal from service dated 18.11.2017. R.Vengatasamy have approached this Court challenging the charge memo, suspension and seeking permission to engage Advocate for def