Madras High Court
L.M.Saravanan vs The District Collector on 22 February, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :22.02.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.15632 & 26933 of 2018
in
W.M.P.Nos.18565 & 31299 of 2018
L.M.Saravanan ..Petitioner in both WPs.
..vs..
1.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
2.The Personal Assistant (Development)
to the District Collector,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
3.The Commissioner,
Panchayat Union,
Nallampalli,
Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents in both WPs.
4.The Tahsildar,
Nallampalli Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
5.Mr.P.Perumal ..Respondents in WP No.26933/2018
Prayer in 15632 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records
pertaining to passing of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.9278/2018/K3 dated
20.06.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same regarding
the transfer of the petitioner and grant such other relief.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer in 26933 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records
pertaining to the issuance of the impugned memorandum of charges issued in
Na.Ka.No.9278/2018/K3 dated 31.08.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein
and quash the same and grant such other relief.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar
... in both WPs.
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thanbidurai
Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
Mrs.V.Annalakshmi for R3
... in W.P.No.15632/2018
Mr.A.N.Thanbidurai
Special Government Pleader for R1,R2 & R4
Mr.E.Neelakandan
Government Advocate for R3
Mr.G.Sankaran for R5
... in W.P.No.26933/2018
COMMON ORDER
The charge memo dated 31.08.2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder:
Fw; wr;rhl;L vz; 1 ,th; kw;Wk; ,tuJ FLk;gj;jpdh; ey;yk;gs;sp tl;lk; ,yspfk; fpuhkj;jpy; vUf;fk;khs; http://www.judis.nic.in 3 nfhapy; bry;Yk; ghijapy; jilfs; Vw;gLj;jp mHptpd; tpspk;gpy; ,Uf;Fk; FUk;gh; ,d kf;fSf;F ,ila{W Vw;gLj;jp muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973 kPwpaJ. Fw; wr;rhl;L vz; 2 ey;yk;gs;sp tl;lk; ,yspfk; fpuhkj;jpy; FUk;gh; ,d kf;fspd; tHpghl;Lj;jykhd vUf;fk;khs; nfhapYf;F bry;Yk; ghijapy; jil mikj;J ,ila{W Vw;gLj;jp muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfis 1973 kPwpaJ kl;Lky;yhky; 14 Mz;LfSf;F xU Kiw FUk;gh; ,d kf;fs; tHpgLk; nfhtpYf;F brhe;jkhd tHpj;jlj;jpid jilfs; Vw;gLj;jpanjhL murpay; fl;rpfis rhh;e;j egh;fSld; ,ize;J ,Ujug;g[ kf;fSf;Fk; rhjp rz;ilapid cUthf;f ,th; fhuzkhf ,Ue;jJ. mikjp FGf; Tl;lj;jpid elj;jtplhky; FUk;gh; ,d kf;fspd; tHpghl;L jyj;jpw;fhd ghijapid jilfs; Vw;gLj;jp muRg;gzpapid nkw;fz;l eltof;iffspy; jtwhf gad;gLj;jpaJ. Fw; wr;rhl;L vz; 3 jdpah; kw;Wk; jdpauJ FLk;g cWg;gpdh;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;J tptu';fis gzpg;gjpntl;oy; gjpajf;f tifapy; mYtyf jiytUf;F bjhptpf;fhkYk;. gzpg;gjpntl;oy; ehsJ tiu gjpahkYk; muR CHpah;fs; elj;ij tpjpapid kPwp bray;gl;lJ Fw; wr;rhl;L vz; 4 muR CHpah; gjtpapid jtwhf gad;gLj;jp rl;l xG';F gpur;rid Vw;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;jJ. ,jdhy; ,tUf;fhd muRg; gzpapy; bkj;jdkhft[k; ftdf;Fiwthft[k; bray;gl;lJ. Fw; wr;rhl;L vz; 5 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 ,th; jkpH;ehL muRg; gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973. gphpt[ 20(i) - d; go ,th; jdJ flikapy; neh;ika[lDk;. gw;WlDk; gzpapid rhptu bra;aj;jtwpaJ Annexure-2 of the charge memo provides statement of proof of misconduct. Annexure-3 denotes the list of documents relied upon by the Competent Authorities. Annexure-4 enumerates the witnesses to be examined to establish the charges. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner.
2. On a plain reading of the allegations set out in the charge memo, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that the allegations are certainly serious. The writ petitioner is serving as a Driver in the respondent Department. Thus, the allegations certainly warrant an enquiry by the Competent Authorities to cull out the truth in respect of the allegations set out on the charge memo. Instead of submitting explanations/objections on the allegations raised in the charge memo, the petitioner filed a petition mainly on the ground that the charge memo itself is issued on certain personal vengeance and on account of the fact that the writ petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.55 of 2012 for declaration in respect of the immovable property and the Suit filed against the Government. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit is posted for arguments and soon, the suit will be disposed of.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that on account of certain personal vengeance against the writ petitioner, officials are attempting to punish the writ petitioner. Earlier he was placed under suspension and subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked and the writ petitioner was permitted to join duty on 11.08.2018. On revocation of suspension he was transferred to Morappur Panchayat Union and the petitioner challenging the transfer and filed another writ petition in W.P.No.15632 of 2018.
5. This Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner was transferred to Morappur Panchayat Union on the revocation of the order of suspension and the same cannot be interfered with. This apart, the petitioner had already joined in the transferred place on 11.08.2018 and now, working in the post of Driver. This being the factum, the transfer order dated 20.06.2018, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.15632 of 2018, deserves no merit consideration.
6. As far as W.P.No.26933 of 2018 is concerned, the charge memo is challenged on the ground that the authorities competent are acting against the writ petitioner in order to take personal vengeance as the wife of the writ petitioner has filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.55 of 2012. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
7. This Court is of a considered opinion that even in case of raising allegation of malafides, the authorities against whom such an allegation is raised are to be impleaded as party respondent in their personal capacity in order to establish the allegation of malafides. Mere statement in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that on personal vengeance, charge memo was issued, cannot be considered. Therefore, the allegations made against the official which all are not substantiated, cannot be considered for the purpose of quashing the charge memo.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the events, incidents and the allegations against the officials are enumerated in the affidavit. This Court is of an opinion that unless an opportunity of hearing is provided to the officials in their personal capacity, all such allegations cannot be taken into consideration, for the purpose of quashing the charge memo.
9. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner has to submit his explanations/objections on the charge memo to establish his innocence or otherwise, by producing documents and by adducing evidences, if required. This Court if of an undoubted opinion that when certain allegations are framed against public servants, they are bound to establish their innocence only by participating in the enquiry.
10. Judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. The High http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Court cannot quash the charge memo by adjudicating the merits and demerits of the issues. Thus, merits and demerits are to be adjudicated only by following the verification of documents and by adducing evidences. No such writ can be entertained in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the enquiry and establish his innocence by availing the opportunities to be provided by the Competent Authorities, with reference to the Rules in disciplinary proceedings.
11. On initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the authorities competent must be vigilant in concluding the same at the earliest possible. Long delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to the interest of the employees. The service benefits to be granted are also denied including retirement and other benefits, if the departmental disciplinary proceedings are pending against the Government Servant. Such being the adverse consequences of the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the authorities must ensure that departmental proceedings are concluded within a reasonable period of time without causing any undue delay. However, early disposal is possible only with the co-operation of the delinquent officials. Thus, the writ petitioner has to co-operate for the earlier disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. In the event of any non-cooperation on the side of the writ petitioner, the same shall be recorded in the proceedings of the enquiry on the disciplinary proceedings.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
12. Thus, the writ petitioner is also responsible for the early disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. This being the view of this Court, the respondents are directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. With these directions, the present writ petition stands disposednof. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.02.2019 Pns Internet:yes Index:Yes Speaking Order http://www.judis.nic.in 9 To
1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
2.The Personal Assistant (Development) to the District Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Nallampalli, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
Pns W.P.Nos.15632 & 26933 of 2018 in W.M.P.Nos.18565 & 31299 of 2018 22.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in