Madras High Court
P.Giridharan vs The Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd on 10 August, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10-08-2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.2197 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.2172 and 2173 of 2017 P.Giridharan .. Petitioner Versus The Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, No.31, Kamarajar Salari, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. .. Respondent PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in respect of the charge memo dated 23.1.2017 bearing na.Ka.No.3097/E1/2013 pursuant to the show cause notice bearing na.Ka.No.3097/E1/2013 dated 6.1.2017 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi For Respondent : Ms.A.Sri Jayanthi, Special Government Pleader. O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records in relation to the charge memo dated 23.1.2017 and the show cause notice dated 6.1.2017 and quash these orders.
2. The writ petitioner joined in the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited as a Project Officer in the year 1984 and presently, he is working as Manager (Production 1) at the Corporate Office of the respondent. The writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2017 and when he was working at Melur, Madurai District as Divisional Manager (Production 1), from 16.6.2001 to 19.6.2006, there were certain allegations. On account of such allegations, a charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner by the respondent in proceedings dated 23.1.2017. The charges against the writ petitioner are as under:-
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/1 khtl;l Ml;rpau; kJiu kw;Wk; jdp mYtyu; - rl;l Mizau; jdJ mwpf;ifapy; gj;jp vz;/52/8y; jpUthsu; jkpH;ehL fdpk epWtdk; jdJ (i) KLU 297/1, (ii) KLU 295/5(P), (iii) KLU & KLR 398/1 & 272/2, 272/3 & (iv) Semminipatti702/1(p) Mfpa Fthupfspy; ,Ue;J 154287 fd kPl;lu;fs; mstpw;F tHpjl rhd;wpid kJiu g[tpapay; kw;Wk; Ru';fj;Jiw K:yk; bgw;Ws;sjhft[k;. ,Ug;gpDk; rpwg;g[ FGtpd; kjpg;gPl;od;go 1527418.06 fd kPl;lu;fs; fw;fs; btl;o vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;. mjd;go Ru';f Fj;jif gug;gst[ kw;Wk; tHpjl rhd;W Mfpaitfis fHpj;jJ nghf ,Ug;gpid rupghu;f;Fk; nghJ 1324176.000 fd kPl;lu;fs; fw;fs; Kiwnflhf btl;o vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhf bjuptpj;Js;shu;/ nkw;fz;l mst[ overburden, inter-burden, presence of planes of weakness such as joints, intrusion such as xenoliths mog;gilapy; fzf;fplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,jd; K:yk; rpwg;g[ FG 65% - 67% tiu cw;gj;jp rjtPjk; fzf;fpl;L bjuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;epiyapy; jpU/gh/ fpupjud;. nkyhsu; (cw;gj;jp?1). nkY}u; nfhl;lj;jpy; nfhl;l nkyhsuhf 16.06.2001 Kjy; 19.06.2006 tiu gzpg[upe;jnghJ cs;nehf;fj;Jld; bray;gl;L nkny Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s KiwnfLfs; bjhlu;ghd tptu';fisnah my;yJ jftnyh jdpahuhy; jiyik mYtyfj;jpd; cldo ftdj;jpw;F bfhz;Ltug;gltpy;iy/ jdpaupd; ,e;j xG';fPd braiy bgU';Fw;wkhf fUjp jkpH;ehL fdpk epWtd xG';F ed;dlj;ij kw;Wk; nky; KiwaPL tpjp vz;/3.29(i) kw;Wk; (vi)d;go Fw;wr;rhl;L Rkj;jg;gLfpwJ/
(i) Violation of the service rules and the conduct, discipline and appeal rules of the company.
(vi) Theft, fraud of dishonesty in connection with the company's business or property or others property within the company's premises.
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/2 khtl;l Ml;rpau; kJiu kw;Wk; jdp mYtyu; - rl;l Mizau; mwpf;ifapd;go nkw;fz;l KiwnfLfshy; jkpHf murpu;f;Fk; kw;Wk; jkpH;ehL fdpk epWtdj;jpw;Fk; gy nfho U:gha; tUtha; ,Hg;gPL Vw;gl;Ls;sjhf bjuptpj;jjpypUe;J. jpU/gh/fpupjud;. nkyhsu; (cw;gj;jp?1). nkY}u; nfhl;l nkyhsuhf gzpahw;wpa jdJ gzpfhyj;jpd; nghJ. jkpH;ehL fdpk epWtd fPiHa{u;. fPHtst[ FthupapypUe;J Kiwnflhf fpuhidl; fw;fis btl;o vLj;jij cs;nehf;Fld; ftdpf;f jtwpa[s;shu; vd;gJ bjspthfpwJ/ jdpaupd; ,e;j xG';fPd braiy bgU';Fw;wkhf fUjp jkpH;ehL fdpk epWtd xG';F ed;dlj;ij kw;Wk; nky; KiwaPL tpjp vz;/3.29 (x) kw;Wk; (xiv)d;go Fw;wr;rhl;L Rkj;jg;gLfpwJ/
(x). Breach of any rules in force.
(xiv). Negligence or neglect of work.
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/3 khtl;l Ml;rpau; kJiu kw;Wk; jdp mYtyu; - rl;l Mizau; mwpf;ifapy; 1324176.000 fd kPl;lu;fs; fw;fs; nkY}u; nfhl;lj;jpw;Fl;gl;l 4 Fthupfspy; rl;l tpnuhjkhf btl;o vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhf bjuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ jpU/gh/fpupjud;. nfhl;l nkyhsu;. Mtupd; nkw;ghu;itapy; ,a';fpa fPiHa{u;. fPHtst[ FthupapYk; nkw;go KiwnfL jdpaupd; neuo ftdj;jpw;F tuhky; eilbgw;wpUf;f tha;g;gpy;iy/ ,jd;K:yk; jdpau; jdf;bfd;W xJf;fg;gl;l Fthupfis ghJfhf;ft[k; cupa eltof;ifapid nkw;bfhs;st[k; jtwpa[s;shu;/ jdpaupd; ,e;j xG';fPd braiy bgU';Fw;wkhf fUjp jkpH;ehL fdpk epWtd xG';F ed;dlj;ij kw;Wk; nky; KiwaPL tpjp vz;/3.29 (xxv) kw;Wk; (xxvi)d;go Fw;wr;rhl;L Rkj;jg;gLfpwJ/ (xxv) Failure on the part of the Officer/Staff to protect the property of the company entrusted to him.
(xxvi) Any other irregularity in work / conduct.
3. On a perusal of the charge memo, this Court is of an opinion that there is no infirmity, as such, and the details of the allegations are set out in the impugned charge memo. Instead of submitting explanation/objection, the writ petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition, challenging the charge memo as well as the show cause notice issued in proceedings dated 6.1.2017. The proceedings dated 6.1.2017 is a memo issued to the writ petitioner, requesting him to submit his explanation in respect of the allegations set out in the memo. However, in proceedings dated 23.1.2017, a charge memo was issued to him setting out the charges.
4. This Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has to prove his innocence or otherwise before the enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the Disciplinary Authority. Contrarily, he cannot challenge the charge memo on flimsy grounds.
5. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that there is an inordinate delay of more than ten years in respect of framing of the charges. Further, it is contended that the impugned charge memo does not disclose any specific allegation of any charges warranting a major penalty. Further, the Legal Commissioner's report does not disclose any irregularity during the period in which the writ petitioner was working at Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
6. The other grounds raised in relation to the facts and merits of the case, cannot be considered by this Court in this writ petition in view of the fact that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the very charge memo. All such grounds raised in the writ petition have to be adjudicated before the competent authority at the time of conduct of enquiry.
7. On a perusal of the allegations, this Court is of an opinion that pursuant to the appointment of a Commissioner Thiru U.Sagayam, I.A.S., to probe into the illegal mining activities, the charges are framed against the writ petitioner. As the allegations are very serious and in relation to the illegal mining and causing huge financial loss to the State running to several crores, this Court is not inclined to consider the grounds raised by the writ petitioner in this regard. An enquiry was conducted in detail by Thiru.U.Sagayam, I.A.S., and to submit a detailed report for further actions. Based on the report submitted by the Commissioner, actions were initiated against the writ petitioner. Thus the writ petitioner is at liberty to establish his innocence or otherwise before the competent authority at the time of conducting enquiry.
8. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memorandum framed against the writ petitioner. A charge memo can be challenged on a limited ground and a judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and the Court can entertain a writ petition on exceptional circumstances. A charge memo can be challenged if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction, an allegation of mala fides is raised if the same is in violation of statutory rules. Even in case of raising the allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any such legal grounds, no charge memo can be entertained by way of writ petition.
9. Intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not preferable. However, only on exceptional circumstances, this Court can issue a direction against the proceedings and not in a routine manner. Mere issuance of a call letter to the writ petitioner directing him to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and the grounds raised in this writ petition cannot be considered.
10. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 and the relevant paragraph 6, which is extracted hereunder:
6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself."
11. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [Civil Appeal No.2333 of 2007, Decided on May 29, 2012], the Apex Court of India held that normally, a Charge sheet is not liable to be quashed as it does not adversely affect the rights of an employee and does not give rise to any cause of action. A writ lies only when some right of a party is infringed. The charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or otherwise, it may have a cause of action. Hence, writ petition challenging charge sheet by itself is not maintainable. However, it can be quashed on the ground that issuing authority being not competent to issue the same.
12. In the case of Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28], it was held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not be ordinarily exercised by quashing a charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal.
13. In view of the above legal principles, the present writ petition deserves no consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
10-08-2018 Index : Yes.
Internet: Yes.
Speaking Order.
Svn S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn To The Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, No.31, Kamarajar Salari, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
WP 2197 of 2017 10-08-2018