Madras High Court
G.Kalaichelvi vs The Director on 11 December, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.18296 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.18296 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.17497 of 2023
1 G.Kalaichelvi
Scientist – E, Digital Signal Processing
Division, Society For Applied Microwave
Electronics, Engineering And Research,
Second Cross Road, CIT Campus,
Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. ... PETITIONER
Vs
1 The Director
Society For Applied Microwave Electronics
Engineering And Research, IITCampus,
Hillside, Powai, Mumbai 400 076.
2 P. Satheesan
Scientist -D, Digital Signal Processing
Division, Society For Applied Microwave
Electronics Engineering And Research,
Second Cross Road, CIT Campus,
Taramani, Chennai 600 113. ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records
pertaining to T.A.No.1 of 2018 and to set aside the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 10.02.2023 made in T.A. No 01 of 2018 and
allow the T.A. No. 01 of 2018 and quash the Charge Memo issued by the 1st
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18296 of 2023
respondent in Ref. SMR / EST / KG / dated November 30, 2009.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Dakshini Reddy
Senior counsel
for Mr.B.Balavijayan
For Respondents : Mrs.A.B.Reehana Begum
for Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar
ORDER
(Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The writ petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 10.02.2023 passed in T.A.No. 01 of 2018.
2.Initially, the writ petitioner herein filed W.P.No.360 of 2010 challenging the charge memo dated 30.11.2009 issued by the first respondent.
3.An interim stay was granted and the writ petition was pending for about 8 years. Thereafter, the writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, since the first respondent is a Central Government Organization. It was renumbered as T.A.No.01 of 2008 by the Central Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18296 of 2023 Administrative Tribunal and the matter was heard in the year 2023. On account of the interim stay granted in the year 2010, the charge memorandum is kept pending without any progress, despite the fact that enquiry officer was appointed. The Disciplinary proceedings initiated is kept pending for about 14 years.
4.The petitioner is working as Scientist – E in the first respondent organization. The charge memorandum was issued in proceedings dated 30.11.2009. The charge against the petitioner is that she has shouted with loud voice using unparliamentary, intemperate and insulting language abused Shri P.Satheesan, Scientist – D, SAMER, Chennai/second respondent and thus, behaved in a manner unbecoming of an employee, violating by-law No.44 read with sub rule (iii) of Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Annexure – II provides a statement of imputation.
Annexure - III provides a list of documents relied on. Annexure - IV denotes list of witnesses to be examined.
5.We do not find any infirmity in respect of the charge memorandum Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18296 of 2023 issued by the first respondent. The Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the application by directing the first respondent to complete the enquiry process and pass final order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the said order, the present petition came to be instituted.
6.Mrs.Dakshini Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a whistleblower and made complaint regarding Security aspects and financial irregularities in the organization. Her complaint was to conduct an investigation through CBI. The charge memorandum has been issued. The Overall consideration required in the present case is to protect the whistleblower under the provision of The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014. Against the second respondent also, a complaint has been made by the petitioner. The organization in order to victimize the writ petitioner issued the charge memorandum and thus, it is liable to be set aside.
7.Mrs.A.B.Reehana Begum, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose by stating that the charge Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18296 of 2023 memorandum issued to the writ petitioner was based on the complaint given by the second respondent. Preliminary enquiry was conducted. Charge memorandum was issued and an enquiry officer was appointed. At that point of time, the writ petition was filed and on account of the interim stay granted in the writ petition, the first respondent is unable to complete the departmental disciplinary proceedings. There is no victimization against the writ petitioner. The complaint submitted by the writ petitioner will be dealt with separately in accordance with the law. Thus, the allegations against the respondents are untenable.
8.We are of the considered opinion that charge memorandum issued under the Discipline and Appeal Rules would not provide a cause for institution of writ proceedings or application before the Tribunal. A charge memorandum is challengeable only on limited grounds. If the charge memo has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of mala fides are raised against the authority competent. In the present case, the second respondent was a complainant but the departmental disciplinary proceedings was initiated by the first respondent the Director, who is the competent authority. In the absence of any specific pleading, Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18296 of 2023 ground generally made regarding victimization cannot be considered by the Courts.
9.The Courts cannot consider the disputed facts relating merits on disciplinary matters. The merits of the case are to be considered during the course of enquiry. The petitioner has to establish her defence by availing the opportunities to be provided by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority as per the rules in force. However, the petitioner could able to increase the longevity of the disciplinary proceedings due to the pendency of the writ petition for the past about 14 years. We are not inclined to quash the charge memo in view of the fact that the charge memo per se would not provide a cause to challenge. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to defend her case before the enquiry officer and prove her innocence or otherwise. The first respondent is directed to ensure that the departmental disciplinary proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as possible and by affording opportunity to all the parties in the manner known to law.
10.With these observations, the order impugned passed by the Central Administration Tribunal stands confirmed and the writ petition stands Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18296 of 2023 dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No [S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
Speaking Order : Yes/No 11.12.2024
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sms
To
1 The Director
Society For Applied Microwave Electronics
Engineering And Research, IITCampus,
Hillside, Powai, Mumbai 400 076.
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18296 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
sms
W.P.No.18296 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.17497 of 2023
11.12.2024
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis