Judgment : The petitioner is a widow and she was appointed on compassionate ground as a Park Attender (Mazdoor). When she was asked to vacate the quarters allotted in D.No.6, Madurai Corporation Quarters, Water Tank, Arapalayam Madurai, she moved this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.No.15884 of 2004 and also obtained an order of stay against her eviction. The respondent Corporation had not taken any steps to vacate the stay order. 2. The said writ petition filed in the Principal Bench got transferred to this Court to be heard along with this writ petition. Even today no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, with the permission of the Court, the petitioner withdrew the said W.P.No.15884 of 2004. For the said withdrawal, there was no objection from the Corporation. 3. The impugned order in the present writ petition is a charge memo issued against the petitioner which found fault with her in moving the Court earlier against the order of eviction from the quarters. The same issue was split into by framing ten charges. All the charges emanated from her attempt to move the High Court and get the stay order. In fact, charge No. 2 clearly states that she had unilaterally and directly approached the High Court and violated the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules and the rule of administrative Practice. 4. The counsel for the Corporation is unable to substantiate this charge because under the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, there is no such rule which requires any Government servant taking permission from the Government to file a case against the very Government itself. If there is any such rule in existence, such a rule will be unconstitutional because no persons can seek permission to establish their own right from the very person against whose action they are complaining before the Court. Apart from that, there is no such rule found in the Government Servant Conduct Rules. 5. The respondent Corporation, obviously irked by the conduct of the petitioner in moving the Court, had issued the present charge memo. Such a charge memo issued under the orders of the Commissioner can even amount to contempt because if any person obstruct a citizen’s right to move the Court of law, then such person will be guilty of criminal contempt for having obstructed the course of justice. Such a charge memo issued under the orders of the Commissioner can even amount to contempt because if any person obstruct a citizen’s right to move the Court of law, then such person will be guilty of criminal contempt for having obstructed the course of justice. This Court is not taking any action on the Commissioner because of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. 6. All other charges arose out of the same issue and have been split into ten charges. The allegations made against the petitioner are that (a) she sent recommendation from the political personalities; (b) she applied for medical leave and went to the High Court at Chennai and got stay order; (c) she has also made allegations against the Officers without any basis: (d) By getting the stay order from the High Court she had caused loss to the Corporation in defending the said case; (e) the said conduct of the petitioner increased the workload of the Corporation: (f) she had not followed to respect the orders of the Commissioner and went to the Court etc. 7. Such an action on the part of the Corporation is clearly arbitrary, beyond the powers vested on the Corporation while taking disciplinary action against the employee of the Corporation. Legitimate grievance of an employee before the Court of law can neither be considered as a challenge to the authority of the Corporation, nor it could be said that the authority of the Corporation has been undermined by such an action. Ultimately, in a democracy established by rule of law, citizens can get relief by approaching the Court of law and establish their right in terms of rule of law. There cannot be any notion of justice out side the rule of law. Only by a strict adherence to rule of law, justice can be established. 8. The petitioner had exercised her constitutional right of moving this Court and getting her grievance redressed. The respondent cannot make that an excuse to frame a number of charges including the charge that she had moved the High Court and browbeat her into meek submission. This Court takes a serious view of the conduct of the respondent in having framed the charges. The respondent cannot make that an excuse to frame a number of charges including the charge that she had moved the High Court and browbeat her into meek submission. This Court takes a serious view of the conduct of the respondent in having framed the charges. Though no action for contempt is taken by this Court, but the respondent should be mulcted with cost, to compensate the petitioner, who was forced to move the Court second time against the present charge memo. Cost is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The Court also records the fact that by the constitution of this Bench at Madurai has given an opportunity even to a poor lowly paid Mazdoor to knock at its door seeking justice. 9. Over hundred years ago Shri Aurobindo, dreaming about the free India made the following verse: "A day indeed had dawned. When a million hearts have known not to fear And leave no debts unpaid Life and death are Bond slaves at our feet; Our hearts have forgotten to care." It is that fearlessness that brought one freedom and a republication constitution to govern us. Such cherished freedoms cannot be snatched away from our citizenry by the thoughtless actions of a petty bureaucrat. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the charge memo dated 3.9.2004 will stand set aside. Connected M.P. is unnecessary and hence closed. The respondent is directed to pay the petitioner a cost of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 3 weeks from today and report compliance. Writ petition allowed.