Madras High Court
S.Loganathan vs The Superintendent on 26 February, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.4517 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.4517 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.4887 of 2024
S.Loganathan .... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
and Head of Prisons Department,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. .... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents
in connection with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
Proc.No.12788/KC3/2011 dated 26.09.2012 and confirmed by the second
respondent in Ref.No.2737/Mu.Ou/2013 dated 03.08.2013 and further
confirmed by the third respondent in No.33861/EW.1/2017 dated 06.09.2018
and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.4517 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Tamilvendan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the firsts respondent dated 26.09.2012 and the order of the second respondent dated 03.08.2013, thereby confirming the order passed by the first respondent and the order passed by the first and second respondents imposing with punishment of postponing the increment for the stoppage of increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Warder on 17.10.2002. When the petitioner was due for promotion as Grade-I Warder for the year 2012-2013, he was not granted promotion on the ground that he suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8 W.P.No.4517 of 2024 without cumulative effect. The petitioner, while he was serving as Grade-II Warder in Sub Jail, Udumalpet during the year 2011, had a difference of opinion with the Superintendent, Central Prison. According to the petitioner, the Superintendent had indulged in huge corruption activities and he amazed wealth by committing various irregularities. He acted against those who were honest, sincere and trust worthy. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore and Sub Jail, Udumalpet. Hence, the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(a) of TNCS (D&A) Rules on 27.08.2011. The charge was as follows :
“cLkiy fpisr;rpiwapy; gzpg[hpa[k;
jpU/br/nyhfehjd;. ,uz;lhk;epiyf; fhtyh;. 4/7/11
md;W ,ut[f; flikapy; ,Ue;jnghJ ,ut[ 9/30
kzpastpy; rpiwthrp bry;yJiu j-bg/Fkhurhkp
cs;spl;l 5 rpiwthrpfs; milf;fgl;l miwf;F
te;jjhft[k;. mth;fsplk; Vd; mikjpahf
,Uf;fpwPh;fs; c';fis ahuhtJ kpul;odhh;fsh vd kpul;Lk; bjhdpapy; nfl;ljhft[k;. rpiwthrpfs;
,y;iy vd gjpyspj;jjhft[k; mg;bghGJ ,tuJ
ghf;bfl;oy; nfkuh ngdh itj;jpUe;jjhft[k;
jh';fs; TWtij nghl;nlh vLj;J kpul;Lthnuh
vd;W gakhf ,Ug;gjhft[k; g[fhh; bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/
ePz;l fhy fsg;gzpahsuhfpa ,f;fhtyh;
rpiwthrpfis rpiw eph;thfj;jpw;F vjpuhf
J}z;Lk; nehf;fj;jpy; ele;J bfhz;lJ kw;Wk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.4517 of 2024
rpiwapDs; jil bra;ag;gl;l bghUshd nfkuh
ngdh itj;jpUe;Js;shh;/ ,f;fhtyhpd; ,r;bray;
“rpiwr;rhiyfs; rl;lk; 1894 gphpt[ XI tpjp vz;
54(1) d;go jz;of;fj;jf;fjhFk;/”
4. The petitioner was in possession of banned item viz., Camera Pen, thereby violated the Prison Act Section 11 Rule 54(1) and on receipt of the above charge, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking documents in order to submit his explanation. However, the petitioner was not furnished with any document and as such, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 03.11.2012. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to submit any explanation. However, an enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner has been proved. Therefore, the first respondent, by an order dated 26.09.2012, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed.
5. The order passed by the second respondent was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.933 of 2014. This Court, by an order dated 05.07.2022, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.3595 of 2023. Even https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8 W.P.No.4517 of 2024 pending writ petition in W.P.No.933 of 2014, the petitioner preferred revision before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 06.09.2018. Therefore, the petitioner had withdrawn the appeal with liberty to challenge the order of rejection. Now once again the petitioner challenged the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 thereby imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent passed a non-speaking order. The petitioner was not furnished with any document, which was required by the petitioner, to submit his explanation. Further, the Appellate Authority also did not pass any speaking order. Further, the charge is vague, non-specific, ambiguous and without any basis. He further submitted that even in case of issuing a charge memo under Rule 17(a) for imposing a minor penalty, if the delinquent officer denies the charges, it is the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct an oral enquiry, irrespective of the fact whether the rule provides oral enquiry or not by examining the witnesses. Admittedly, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. However, the petitioner did not submit his explanation for the show cause notice served along with a charge memo. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8 W.P.No.4517 of 2024 Instead of submitting his explanation, the petitioner repeatedly asked for furnishing of certain documents.
7. In fact, he was permitted to pursue the documents and even then without utilizing the said opportunity, the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Therefore, the petitioner was imposed only with a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. That apart, the petitioner also challenged the order passed by the first and second respondents in W.P.No.933 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 05.07.2022. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondents and this writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
26.02.2024 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Lpp https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8 W.P.No.4517 of 2024 To
1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.
3. The Additional Director General of Police and Head of Prisons Department, Egmore, Chennai – 8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8 W.P.No.4517 of 2024 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp W.P.No.4517 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.4887 of 2024 26.02.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8