Madras High Court
N.Chandrasekaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2017
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 27.02.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN WP(MD)No.2521 of 2009 N.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Through the Secretary to Government, Home (Tr.II Dept.) St. George Fort, Chennai-9. 2.The Transport Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chokkikulam, Madurai. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent vide G.O.(D)No.435/Home/Tr-II Department in so far the petitioner is concerned and consequent proceeding in charge memo vide letter of the 1st respondent bearing No.9206/Tr-II/2007-9 dated 17.04.2008 and the G.O.(D)No.1269/Home Tr. Dept/ dated 02.12.2008 in so far the petitioner is concerned and quash the same. !For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent vide G.O.(D)No.435/Home/Tr-II Department in so far the petitioner is concerned and consequent proceeding in charge memo vide letter of the 1st respondent bearing No.9206/Tr-II/2007-9 dated 17.04.2008 and the G.O.(D)No.1269/Home Tr. Dept/ dated 02.12.2008 in so far the petitioner is concerned and quash the same.
2.The case of the petitioner is that when he was working as Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department officials were made surprise checking on 28.10.2002 at the office of the Regional Transport Office, Madurai North and thereafter the case was registered against the petitioner along with 38 others in Cr.No.13 of 2002 under Sections 120B, 420, 167 and 109 of I.P.C. and also 13(1)(a) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on 28.10.2002. Out of the 38 accused, the accused Nos.1 to 19 were Government servants who were employed under the petitioner?s office Regional Transport Office North.
3.The petitioner further states that this petitioner was named as accused No.3 and on the date when F.I.R. was registered, he was working as Regional Transport Officer (Salem). He also states that when he was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I from 11.06.1997 to 07.03.2001 in the office of the Regional Transport Office at Madurai South and he was promoted as Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North and he joined in service on 07.03.2001 and served there till 12.06.2002. The accused Nos.20 to 39 were 3rd parties who were various Mini Bus Operators and their authorised agents. After registering the F.I.R. on 29.10.2002, a raid was conducted in the petitioner?s house, but nothing worthwhile could be recovered.
4.The writ petitioner also states that the allegation in the F.I.R. was that in violation of Rule 103 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, which according to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department prohibits the alteration of Bus. In fact, the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North had entertained transfer of name in favour of the Mini Bus Operators at Madurai in the R.C.Books issued by the Regional Transport Office, Mokkokchung, Nagaland. There were about 40 Mini buses that were brought for re- registration between the financial year 1999-2001 and the allegation against the petitioner is that he has already participated in the malafide Act, when the petitioner was Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, between 07.03.2001 to 12.06.2002. There was no report of any registration committed during the said period when the petitioner was charged at Madurai North, but even then, he was arrayed as A3.
5.The writ petitioner also states that the prosecution allegation in that F.I.R. is that the Mini Bus Operators at Madurai had purchased worn out buses discarded by the State Transport Corporations in Tamil Nadu, altered them by shortening the rear over hang portion behind the rear axle, taken the same to Nagaland got those vehicles registered as new vehicles at the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Mokkokchng, Nagaland and brought the vehicles back to Madurai, got it re-registered in the Madurai office and the officers at the Madurai Regional Transport Office North and South had entertained such re-registration and issued permit for plying the same as Minibus.
6.The writ petitioner also states that further allegation is that the said process has been going on from 1999 to 2001 and 40 buses got re- registration certificates from Madurai North and South R.T.O. When the petitioner was working as Regional Transport Officer, Sivagangai, he was about to retire in the afternoon, but his services were extended vide G.O.(2D) No.63 and he was placed under suspension vide G.O.(2D)No.62 dated 31.01.2007 afternoon, based on the occurrence dated 28.10.2002.
7.The writ petitioner also states that even after lapse of 6 years, there was no progress in the investigation in the F.I.R. Therefore, this petitioner was filed a quash petition of Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.857 of 2008 and considering the petitioner?s case, the Madurai Bench of this Court quashed the said F.I.R. by order dated 20.02.2008.
8.The writ petitioner also states that though he was worked as Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, his powers are limited to the extent of verifying the authenticity endorsement made by the R.T.A. in the other State. Therefore, the F.I.R. was quashed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.857 of 2008 on 20.02.2008.
9.After passing the order by quashing the F.I.R., the 1st respondent/Secretary to Government has issued G.O.No.436/Home/(Tr.II) Department dated 17.04.2008 cancelling G.O.(D) No.1037 dated 21.08.2007 on the basis of which a departmental proceedings was initiated against this petitioner pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 28.10.2002. But, the very same G.O. a new disciplinary proceeding has been initiated without dropping the issue and the 1st respondent has proposed to take disciplinary action and proposed to hold enquiry and the 1st respondent passed another G.O. in G.O.(D) No.1269 Home (Tr-II) Dept. Dated 02.12.2008, appointing another officer and the charge memo contains one charge against the petitioner alleged that as a Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North and he signed and issued re- registration certificates for 40 Mini buses in violation of Rule 103 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rule.
10.The writ petitioner also states that the earlier disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo of the 2nd respondent dated 22.01.2007 vide R.No.78761/V6/2, which is based on the registration of the criminal case against this petitioner and others has been superseded only because of the fact that the F.I.R. has been quashed, therefore, the allegations made in the F.I.R. cannot be used for any purposes. That being so, the 1st respondent has based on the charges in the impugned proceedings vide G.O.(D)No.435/Home/Tr- II Department dated 17.04.2008 has exposes the predetermination of the authority. The proceedings are initiated even without taking into consideration that he has attained superannuation on 31.01.2007 itself, but his service was extended by G.O.63 in the afternoon. Challenging the said impugned order dated 17.04.2008 and 02.12.2008, this writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the same.
11.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations set out by the petitioner in the writ petition.
12.The respondents also stated that the petitioner was worked as a Regional Transport Officer, Madurai (North), has signed and issued re- registration certificates for 40 Mini buses in violation of Rule 103 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, which prohibits the alteration of bus and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a member of service and thus violated the Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973. Hence, the charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was framed against him, superseding the earlier charge memo issued by the Transport Commissioner in Memo R.No.78761/V6/2002 dated 22.01.2007 as the petitioner and other Government Servants are jointly and severely involved in this disciplinary case. Therefore, the 1st respondent in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, has framed charges against the petitioner and 13 others in a common disciplinary proceedings.
13.The respondent also states that while the petitioner was working as a Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I at Madurai from 01.06.1997 to 07.03.2001 and as Regional Transport Officer, Madurai (North) from 2001 to 2002, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.547, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 15.04.1997, have issued orders, permitting Regional Transport Authorities concerned to grant permits to private bus operators for plying Mini buses in the unserved rural areas of the District. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1475 Home (Tr-III) Department, dated 07.10.1997 have also issued orders defining the term of the Mini bus in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989. Accordingly, Mini Bus means a stage carriage constructed on a wheel base of not exceeding 370 cms. and carrying or adapted to carry more than six passengers but not more than 25 passengers including the driver and conductor. Subsequently, the length of wheel base from the existing 370 cms. has been increased to 390 cms. as per G.O.Ms.No.1158, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 24.08.1998. According to Rule 102 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules that the replacement of Chassis of a vehicle shall not be regarded as an alteration under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, Central Act 59 of 1986 and no such replacement shall be made or permitted. Rule 103 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 prescribes that the Registering Authority may permit the conversion of chassis from Bus to Truck and the overhang and wheel base shall be increased if conversion is from Truck to Bus. Thus as per Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Bus operators are prohibited for the conversion of stage carriage buses. However, considering the huge investments in purchasing of new mini buses, the stage carriage bus operators instead of opting for the purchase of new mini buses, preferred to purchase of condemned stage carriage bus and converted the same as mini buses by altering the chassis of stage carriage bus.
14.The respondent also states that there are several persons of the owners of the Mini Buses had purchased the condemned stage carriage buses from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation through the scrap merchants and they re-built the same as mini buses by altering the wheel base and overhang of the buses and got registration in Nagaland State without obtaining any records from licensing authority of Tamilnadu and the Mini Bus owners, with the connivance of Regional Transport Office and his subordinate officials who were aware of the same due to their proximity with each other, exploited the same and the vehicle were registered at the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Mokkokchung, Nagaland and Re-registered them at Regional Transport Offices, Madurai (North and South), by violating the provisions contained in Rule 103 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, which prohibits the alteration of bus. Therefore, the charge against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is not correct. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
15.I heard Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
16.During the course of arguments, the petitioner has filed an Additional typed set and G.O.(D)No.25, 26, 29, 37 and 38 dated 05.01.2012 passed by the 1st respondent has been enclosed in which the 1st respondent has dropped the charges against the persons, who are the subordinate of the petitioner in the above G.O., since an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry report was filed by the enquiry officer by stating that charge against the said employees were not true. The said enquiry officer has filed report and the G.O. were passed to dropping the proceedings against the employees. The enquiry officer in his report has stated as follows:
?Findings of the Enquiry Officer:
The Enquiry Officer has reported that the vehicles in question which were altered into mini buses could not be considered as scrap materials. But, they were only overaged vehicles which could be reconditioned for further use subject to the compliance of the provisions in Chapter VII of the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant rules. Therefore the allegation that the condemned vehicles which were sold as scrap were rebuilt as mini buses causing revenue loss to the Government and danger to public safety cannot be substantiated against the delinquent officer. He has also reported that it cannot be proved that the pencil print of chassis number taken by the delinquent officer at the time of preliminary inspection and subsequent re- registration did not tally with the pencil print affixed in Form 28. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the allegation that the delinquent officer has failed to properly verify the correctness of the chassis number at the time of reregistration is not substantiated. He has, therefore, held the charge as not proved.?
17.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner represented that though as per G.O., the petitioner was permitted to retire, but till date no service benefits was paid to him and hence he requested to issue suitable direction to the respondents to dispose the service benefits to the petitioner. Even though, he has not prayed for in this writ petition. The request of the petitioner is genuine one since when the charge memo issued itself quashed by this Court, there was no impediment for payment of the service benefits due to the petitioner.
18.When the other employees, who are the subordinate of the petitioner, the charges were dropped against them. This petitioner alone was initiated the proceedings under Rule 17(b) and the same is pending for the past 10 years and above. Therefore, when in respect of the other employees, the charges were dropped and hence applying the same, this petitioner also entitled for quashing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the same is quashed.
19.In the result, this writ petition is allowed, by quashing the order of the 1st respondent vide G.O.(D)No.435/Home/Tr-II Department in so far the petitioner is concerned and consequent proceeding in charge memo vide letter of the 1st respondent bearing No.9206/Tr-II/2007-9 dated 17.04.2008 and the G.O.(D)No.1269/Home Tr. Dept/ dated 02.12.2008 in so far the petitioner is concerned. No costs.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Tr.II Dept.) St. George Fort, Chennai-9.
2.The Transport Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chokkikulam, Madurai..