Madras High Court
P.Narayanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 July, 2017
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17-07-2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.8707 of 2017
And
WMP No.9539 of 2017
P.Narayanan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply
Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
5.The Commissioner,
Palladam Municipality,
Palladam,
Tiruppur District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Palladam,
Thiruppur District. .. Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 22.3.2017 in Na.Ka.No.6652/2017/C4 of the second respondent herein and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran,
Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E R
A charge memo dated 22.3.2017, issued by the second respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The second respondent, based on the records available, framed the following charges:
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/1 @jpU/gh/ehuhazd;. Kd;dhs; efuhl;rp Mizau;. gy;ylk; jw;nghJ efuhl;rp Mizau;. nkl;L:u; Mfpa jh';fs; gy;ylk; efuhl;rpapy; gzpahw;wpanghJ fPH;f;fhQqk; KiwnfLfs; bra;Js;sPu;fs;/ 1/ cuf;fpl';F mikg;gjw;F Kjw;fz; gy;ylk; efuhl;rpf;F mUfhikapy; tUtha; Jiwf;F brhe;jkhd epyk; VnjDk; cs;sjh vd nju;t[ bra;J ,ytrkhf epy cupik khw;wk; bra;a khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; jpUg;g{u; mtu;fSf;F fUj;JUtpid mDg;gp efuhl;rpapd; epjpapHg;gpid jtpu;f;fhjJ/ 2/ gy;ylk; efuhl;rpapy; cuf;fpl';F mikg;gjw;F rl;lj;jpw;Fl;gl;l epyj;jpw;F U:/5/50 ,yl;rk; re;ij kjpg;ghf epu;zak; bra;jpUe;Jk;. epy cupikahsu; gjpt[ mYtyu; tHpfhl;o kjpg;gpd;go U:/10/00 ,yl;rk; tPjk; bkhj;jk; 25/70 Vf;fu; epyj;jpid fpuak; bra;a bghJ epjpapypUe;J U:/257/00 ,yl;rk; brytpid nkw;bfhs;s 12/9/2015k; ehspl;l gpnuuiz j';fshy; mDg;gg;gl;lJ/ 3/ nkw;fz;l gpnuuizahy; gy;ylk; efuhl;rpf;F U:/115/65 ,yl;rk; epjp ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tifapy; cs;nehf;fj;Jld; bray;gl;Ls;sPu;fs;/ 4/ murhiz 103. tUtha;j;Jiw. ehs; 28/2/2011y; khtl;l mstpyhd jdpahu; ngr;R thu;j;ij FGtpw;F bkhj;j epy kjpg;g[ U:gha; xU nfho tiuapYk; epyj;jpy; Vf;fu; - bcwf;nlu; 1?f;F 150 rjtPjk; tiu re;ij kjpg;g[ my;yJ tHpfhl;o kjpg;g[ ,tw;wpy; vJ Fiwnth mtw;iw epu;zak; bra;ayhk; vd Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ xU nfhof;F mjpfkhf cs;s epy';fSf;F epykjpg;g[ bra;a epu;zak; bra;a[k; bghUl;L epy epu;thf Mizaupd; jiyikapyhd khepy mstpyhd jdpegu; ngr;R thu;j;ij FGtpy; itj;J tpiy epu;zak; bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; bjuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;fhQqk; cuf;fpl';F th';f cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Lss ,lk; U:/2/00 nfhof;Fk; mjpfkhf cs;sjhy; khepy mstpyhd FGtpw;F kl;Lnk mjpfhuk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjhy;. nkw;go gpnuuizapd; kPJ Tljy; jiyik brayu; - epu;thf Mizaupd; jiyikapyhd khepy mstpyhd ngr;R thu;j;ij FGtpd; xg;g[jiy bgw;w Fwpg;ghd gupe;Jiua[ld; gpnuuziapid mDg;ghky; bray;gl;lJ/ ,jd; K:yk; murhiz 103. tUtha;j;Jiw. ehs; 28/2/2011y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;l tpjpKiwfis kPwp bray;gl;lJ/ 5/ jw;nghJ gzpg[upa[k; gy;ylk; efuhl;rp Mizau;. ,e;efuhl;rpf;F khjg;g{u; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/872y; cs;s 9/6 Vf;fu; epyj;jpid ,ytrkhf epy cupik khw;wk; bra;a khtl;ll Ml;rpj;jiytu; jpUg;g{u; mtu;fSf;F fUj;JU mDg;gg;gl;L. gy;yl;k tl;lhl;rpau; mtu;fshy;. g[yj;jzpf;if bra;ag;gl;L efuhl;rpf;F epyk; tH';fyhk; vd gupe;Jiu bra;J tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpau; kw;Wk; khtl;;l tUtha; mYtyu; mtu;fshy; epyk; Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;L jw;nghJ Kd;EiHt[ mDkjp tH';Fk; epiyapy; cs;s ,e;j epfH;tpid Vd; jh';fs; bray;gLj;jtpy;iy/ 6/ ,jd; K:yk; jh';fs; cs;nehf;fj;Jld; bray;gl;L gy;ylk; efuhl;rpf;F epjpapHg;g[ Vw;gLk; tifapy; bray;gl;L epu;thf Fe;jfk; Vw;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;sPu;fs;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/2 jpU/gh/ehuhazd;. Kd;dhs; efuhl;rp Mizau;. gy;ylk; jw;nghJ efuhl;rp Mizau;. nkl;L:u; Mfpa jh';fs; gy;ylk; efuhl;rpapy; gzpahw;wpanghJ jkpH;ehL muR gzpahsu; ed;dlj;ijtpjpfspy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;s bghWg;g[fisbay;yhk; ruptu epiwntw;whky; vjpu;ghu;f;fg;gl;l neu;ikahd elj;ij. flikapy; <LghL efuhl;rp eydpy; mf;fiw Mfpatw;wpy; ,Ue;J jtwp bghWg;gpd;wp gzpahw;wpa[s;sPu;fs;/@
3. On receipt of the charge memo, the writ petitioner, even before submitting the explanations/objections to the Disciplinary Authority, moved this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the very charge itself is untenable in view of the fact that the charges are framed based on the proposal submitted by the writ petitioner to execute certain works.
4. A mere submission of the proposal to the Higher Authorities, cannot consitute a charge since it stands on the footing of the proposal and only in the event of sanctioning the proposal and only after causing actual monetary loss to the Government, charge can be framed, if any irregularity is committed.
5. The learned counsel further contended that some of the proposals were submitted even prior to the joining of the writ petitioner in the present post. Therefore, a mere proposal, cannot be construed or cannot pave a way for framing of the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
6. This Court has gone through the veracity of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. It is apparent that the writ petitioner has submitted a proposal for execution of certain works and the very allegation is the proposal and the way in which the proposal was submitted itself was with an ulterior motive and such a proposal ought not to have submitted in the interest of the public. In other words, any proposal contrary to the Rules and against the public policy and with an ulterior motive for pecuniary gains or otherwise and if submitted for the approval of the Competent Authorities, certainly such an act of the Government employee amounts to misconduct and, framing of charges in that regard cannot be construed as without jurisdiction.
7. The learned counsel strenuously contended that the writ petitioner has only submitted the proposal and the proposal was not fructified. In the event of implementing the proposal alone, the cause for framing the charges will arise. Such an argument is unable and unable to be accepted by this Court in view of the fact that it is not a criminal prosecution wherein a high standard of proof is required for initiation of prosecution. It is useful to consider the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules. Rule 20 of the Conduct Rules defines 'integrity and devotion to duty', which is extracted hereunder:-
20. Integrity and devotion to duty -
(1) Every member of the Service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.
(2) Every member of the Service shall take all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty by all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority.
3. (i) No Government servants shall in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.
(ii) The direction of the official superior shall ordinarily be in writing, oral directions to subordinates shall be avoided. Where the issue of oral direction becomes unavoidable the official superior shall confirm it in writing immediately thereafter.
(iii) A government servant who has received oral directions from his official superior shall seek confirmation of the same in writing as early as possible, where upon it shall be the duty of the official superior to confirm the direction in writing.
(iv) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him evade the responsibility devolving legitimately on him and seek instruction from, or approval, of a superior authority when such instruction or approval is not necessary in the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.
Explanation - A Government servant who habitually fails to perform a task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of sub rule (1).
8. Even, while preparing the proposal, any Authority, who has undertaken the work/job, has to maintain the integrity and devotion to duty to prepare such a proposal. On perusal of the charges impugned in this writ petition, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority found that the writ petitioner has prepared the proposal with some ulterior motive or otherwise. Though it remains as an allegation, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a full-fledged enquiry and come to the conclusion whether any misconduct is committed by the writ petitioner or not. This Court is not inclined to consider the merits and the demerits of the allegations but the stage at which the present writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is to be deprecated.
9. Instead of establishing his innocence before the domestic enquiry, the writ petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition merely on the ground that he submitted the proposal to the Government and no financial loss caused to the Government. Such an argument, if accepted by this Court, it will be dangerous that in each and every circumstances, such a writ petition will be filed under one or the other pretext, in order to evade from the clutches of disciplinary proceedings.
10. 'Integrity and devotion to duty' is a paramount quality for a public functionaries and they are always accountable to the public in general, since each rupee to be dealt by the public servants are the taxpayers money and, no public servant has got any right to waste the taxpayers money, which is to be utilised by the authorities in a judicious manner.
11. As per Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Charge means formally accuse someone of something, especially an offence under law who is entrusted with the task or responsibility. Thus, a formal accusation is sufficient to frame the departmental charges and it is for the person, against whom the charges framed, has to prove his innocence before the Competent Forum. Such being the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'Charge', the allegations against the writ petitioner, in the impugned charge memo, certainly deserves an enquiry.
12. In these circumstances, the only yardstick to be adopted by the authorities are that whether the public servant has acted in a prudent manner or not under the given circumstances. If such a public servant has acted in a prudent manner and certain losses if cannot be avoided, then the question is different. But if any public servant acted with some motive, then certainly, he is liable for disciplinary proceedings. However, at this stage, this Court need not travel into the merits and demerits of the charges framed against the writ petitioner.
13. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits on the allegations set out against the writ petitioner in the impugned charge memo dated 22.3.2017, this Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations mooted out against the writ petitioner, certainly deserves an exhaustive domestic enquiry and the exercise shall be undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority at the earliest possible time by conducting an enquiry after affording all reasonable opportunities to the writ petitioner under the Rules.
14. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to consider the grounds and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the writ petition stands dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
17-07-2017 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Svn
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply
Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
5.The Commissioner,
Palladam Municipality,
Palladam,
Tiruppur District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Palladam,
Thiruppur District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP No.8707 of 2017
17-07-2017