Madras High Court
V. Tamilalagan vs The Registrar General on 5 December, 2019
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Subramonium Prasad
W.P.No.11588 of 2019
and WMP No.11829 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.12.2019
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.11588 of 2019
and
WMP No.11829 of 2019
V. Tamilalagan .. petitioner
-vs-
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
2. The District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial
Magistrate of the Nilgiris,
Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris District .... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in Charge Sheet in
Page 1 of 8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.11588 of 2019
and WMP No.11829 of 2019
D.E.No.01/2019, dated 29.03.2019 and quash the same and further
direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to Salem District on
the ground of orthopedically handicapped with 50% disability.
For petitioner : Mr.Sajeevkumar
For respondents : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
ORDER
( made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in Charge Sheet in D.E.No.01/2019, dated 29.03.2019 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to Salem District on the ground of orthopedically handicapped with 50% disability.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Reader at present at Pandalulr, Nilgiris Page 2 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11588 of 2019 and WMP No.11829 of 2019 District. The challenge raised to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 is that nature of the allegations viz., that the petitioner is pursuing his representations in a manner that amounts to gross insubordination, is not warranted under the aforesaid Rules. In the alternative, the argument is that even if it were so, though not admitting, then such paltry charges ought to be examined only in terms of Rule 17(a) of the aforesaid Rules.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a physically handicapped employee and his representation not being heard, had no other option but to move his representations to higher authorities including High Court. This by itself is neither indiscipline nor gross insubordination so as to institute disciplinary proceedings.
4. The charges that have been instituted against the petitioner for enquiry, in our opinion, may or may not require consideration and the issue as to whether the petitioner should be tried for the charges, keeping in view Rule 17(a) or Rule 17(b) of Tamil Page 3 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11588 of 2019 and WMP No.11829 of 2019 Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is for the enquiring authority and the disciplinary authority to take a call in view of the nature of the allegations made with which, we would not like to interfere at this stage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 and contended that interference in the rarest of rare cases against the charge sheet deserves to be entertained in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. We have gone through the contents of the said judgment but the ratio thereof would not apply inasmuch as that was a case with regard to the submission of a second charge sheet when the delinquent had already been exonerated against the very same charges in the previous proceedings.
7. Learned counsel then contended that as a matter of fact Page 4 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11588 of 2019 and WMP No.11829 of 2019 two more charge sheets almost grounded on the same set of facts have been handed over to the petitioner on 20.12.2018 and 29.03.2019 which act further consolidates the apprehension of the petitioner about his victimization by the respondent.
8. We are not entering into the merits of the submissions at this stage without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to raise his defence before the appropriate authority in accordance with the Rules under which he has been proceeded with.
9. As we do not find this to be one of the rarest of rare cases where interference is called for keeping in view the nature of the allegations made, it is for the petitioner to defend himself during enquiry proceedings on the basis of any material evidence, but, in view of the nature of the allegations made of moving representations, it would be more appropriate that the disciplinary authority completes the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and is about to attain the age of superannuation in June 2020. Page 5 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11588 of 2019 and WMP No.11829 of 2019
10. We therefore direct the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to records, no costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.P., J.)
05.12.2019
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sr
To
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
2. The District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam, Page 6 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11588 of 2019 and WMP No.11829 of 2019 The Nilgiris District Page 7 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11588 of 2019 and WMP No.11829 of 2019 The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Subramonium Prasad, J.
sr W.P.No.11588 of 2019 05.12.2019 Page 8 of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in