Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4174 (MAD)

P. Mani v. The Principal Secretary

2010-09-16

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner entered the service as a directly recruited Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in the year 1985. He was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I in the year 1990. He was further promoted as Regional Transport Officer in the year 2005. 2. It is stated that while the petitioner was doing work in his office at Erode on 23.02.2007, two Tahsildars of District Supply Office with Vigilance and Anti-corruption Officials entered the office at 5.00 p.m., and forcibly searched his personal belongings and also those of other staff. They seized several records saying that they came for surprise inspection of the office. The police constables, who accompanied them, blocked the passages of the office and detained all the visitors who came for their official business and seized the cash kept by them under threat and they were branded as touts used by the officials of the petitioners office, Erode. It is also stated that the Revenue Officials obtained statements from the alleged touts behind the back of the petitioner. They kept all the general public for more than 13 hours till the next day morning. They were subjected to harassment and they were directed to give statements against the officials of the Regional Transport Office. Finally, the inspecting officials obtained the petitioners signature and other Motor Vehicle Inspectors who were present in the office and also obtained signature in the last page of the inspection mahazar prepared by them without allowing the petitioner and others to read the contents of the same and without furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner and others. 3. While so, a criminal case was registered against the touts viz., Selvapathy and 20 others in Crime No.2/AC/2007/ER dated 24.02.2007 for the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 102 (1) Cr.PC. After investigation, the Vigilance and Anti-corruption officials, placed the petitioner and 9 other subordinate employees before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore in TDP case No.6/2009 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.379/2009 A3 dated 10.08.2009. 4. The allegation made against the petitioner was that while he was serving as a Regional Transport Officer at Erode, he violated the Motor Vehicle Rules 430 and failed to follow the instructions of the Superior Officers. 4. The allegation made against the petitioner was that while he was serving as a Regional Transport Officer at Erode, he violated the Motor Vehicle Rules 430 and failed to follow the instructions of the Superior Officers. It is further alleged that the aforesaid inspection revealed the following delinquencies:- i) The petitioner obtained illegal gratification of Rs.400/-through an office staff for issuing an International Driving License for Navin Kumar of Erode. ii) During the surprise inspection, unaccounted cash of Rs.64,290/- was recovered. iii) Engaged a daily wage labour for doing work in the office without the permission of the superior officers. iv) The office records including Acquaintance Register has not been maintained properly and the petitioner failed to sign the registers for the month of October to December 2006 and January 2007. 5. In these circumstances, the third respondent issued the impugned charge memo dated 10.08.2009, making the aforesaid allegations. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid charge memo dated 10.08.2009 issued by the third respondent on various grounds. 7. While ordering notice of motion on 23.12.2009, this Court granted interim stay of further proceedings. 8. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The second respondent also filed an application to vacate the interim order dated 23.12.2009 passed by this Court. 9. Heard Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 10. Though the petitioner raised various grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to only one ground that the inspection conducted by the Tahsildars of District Supply Office was wholly without jurisdiction and that therefore, the impugned charge memo was passed without jurisdiction. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as per the Government Orders, the District Inspection Cell Officer in the rank of Deputy Collector and the Superintendent in the rank of Deputy Tahsildar, Inspection Cell alone are authorized to enter into the Government Office and to conduct inspection. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inspection conducted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar, who are not authorized by the Government for the purpose of conducting inspection, was contrary to the Government Orders. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inspection conducted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar, who are not authorized by the Government for the purpose of conducting inspection, was contrary to the Government Orders. He proceeded that the act of the Tahsildar assuming the role of the Inspection Officer, has no legal sanctity. According to him, the inspection conducted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar of District Supply Office are wholly incompetent and hence, the complaint preferred by them is unsustainable and the charge memo, based on the same, is bad. 12. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the Memorandum No.1287/77-1, dated 10.08.1977 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Inspection) Department and more particularly, he relied on para 5(e) of the memorandum. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tahsildar of District Supply Office has no authority to enter into the office of the petitioner to make inspection and to complain on the same. He relied on the FIR lodged by Thiru.S.Dharmalingam, Tahsildar, Flying Squad, Civil Supply, Collectorate, Erode District, based on the inspection made. 14. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the surprise inspection was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption authorities, Erode Detachment along with the District Inspection Cell on 23.02.2007. The Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, after an in-depth investigation, sent a report to the Government. The Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department utilized the services of the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar of District Supply Office and there is nothing wrong for the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department in utilizing their services. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that before going to inspect any Government Office, it is the procedure of the Vigilance & Anti-corruption authorities, to attend the same along with the officers of the Government. In the present case, the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar of District Supply Office in the cadre of Superintendent, attended the inspection. They are authorized by the Government to enter into any Government Office to conduct inspection and to call for the records and to prepare inspection reports. It is further submitted the inspection conducted by the Vigilance & Anti-corruption authorities is the basis for the charges and the petitioner could not find fault with the assisting officials, who assisted the Vigilance & Anti-corruption authorities. 15. It is further submitted the inspection conducted by the Vigilance & Anti-corruption authorities is the basis for the charges and the petitioner could not find fault with the assisting officials, who assisted the Vigilance & Anti-corruption authorities. 15. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 16. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Inspection) Department issued Memorandum No.1287/77-1, dated 10.08.1977 for improving the efficiency of administration in various departmental offices and for the said purpose, the District Inspection Cells were set up. The very purpose of the District Inspection Cells were to achieve the clean and efficient administration. Clause 5 of the said memorandum dated 10.08.1977 provides the procedure that has to be adopted by the District Inspection Cell and the same is extracted here-under:- "5. The following revised working procedure should therefore be adopted by the District Inspection Cells:- a) Allocation of working days for Inspections should be decreased by making the Inspections less procedural and more purposeful inspections could be utilized for on the job training. Inspections and Training should also aim at simplification of rules and procedures through discussions with the staff. This should be followed by specific proposals, by the Inspection cells for necessary revisions/amendments in the rules and procedure. The proposals are to be addressed to concerned inspection officer. b) Points and places in Departmental units in the district in respect of which there are persistent complaints of information, should be listed out. Information obtained on Collectors Grievance days for the public should throw up a lot of materials for fruitful surprise checks, Collectors, their vigilance officers, the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption and its detachments and district Heals of other departments should pass on such information to the cells; personnel of the cells should themselves also collect such information. c) All working days not taken up by Inspections and Training should be devoted to surprise checking of the listed points and places. Surprise checking should not be confused with enquiries into complaints; the latter function should not be undertaken by the Inspection Cells. d) For undertaking a surprise check, the staff of the Inspection Cell should proceed to the office selected without prior and make a request to an available supervisory officer of the office at an appropriate level to conduct the check of the work of a particular seat or number of the staff. d) For undertaking a surprise check, the staff of the Inspection Cell should proceed to the office selected without prior and make a request to an available supervisory officer of the office at an appropriate level to conduct the check of the work of a particular seat or number of the staff. The cell staff should carry a copy of these instructions to be shown as the authority under which the request is made. e) For the purpose of the proceeding paragraph, the Inspection Cell will function as two teams. i. The Special Officer Deputy Collector ii. The Superintendent-Tahsildar. The intention is that each team will conduct the surprise check in certain offices– and not that both teams will go to the same office. f) Concise proceedings must be drawn up in duplicate listing specific instances of delay or other irregularity affecting clean and efficient administration. The proceedings should signed by the Departmental supervisory officer and the cell officer. On the basis of his copy of the proceedings, the Departmental Supervisory Officer should initiative preventive Regional Head. The Inspection Cell Officer should maintain his copy in a file, but submit copies of it directly to (i) Vigilance Commissioner (ii) the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption and (iii) The head of the Department concerned." 17. Another D.O. Letter No.1287/77-3 dated 10.08.1977 of the Vigilance Commissioner and Commissioner for Administrative Reforms states that the State was determined to give a clean administration and the same is enclosed at page No.4 of the typed-set of papers. 18. The guidelines for the conduct of surprise checks in the offices of Government Departments / Undertakings are enclosed at page No.5 of the typed- set of papers. Clause 8 of the said guidelines is as follows:- "Officers organizing surprise checks should maintain close liason with local officers of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption for exchange of information, which will be useful for surprise checks of the former, and enquiries / investigations of the latter." 19. Therefore, the purpose of conducting surprise check is to provide clean administration to the general public. The Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department functions to achieve the aforesaid objective. The District Inspection Cells are also established to assist the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Officials. Clause 5 (e) of the Memorandum dated 10.08.1977 that is relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him. The Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department functions to achieve the aforesaid objective. The District Inspection Cells are also established to assist the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Officials. Clause 5 (e) of the Memorandum dated 10.08.1977 that is relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him. Clause 5(e) of the Memorandum nowhere states that Tahsildar should not be from District Supply office. It is merely stated that the inspection official should be in the rank of Tahsildar. As per clause 5(e) of the Memorandum dated 10.08.1977, the Inspection Cell would function as two teams. One team is headed by the Special Officer Deputy Collector and the other team is headed by the Superintendent – Tahsildar. Thus, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, particularly, taking into account the objective of the inspection made by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption officials taking the assistance of the Tahsildar from Taluk Supply Office. 20. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, the second respondent stated that the surprise check was conducted by Vigilance and Anti-corruption authorities of Erode Detachment along with the District Inspection Cell. 21. As stated above, even the Memorandum relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not state that the Tahsildar should not be from District Supply Office. Based on the Inspection conducted on 23.02.2007, the Vigilance and Anti-corruption authorities sent the report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government directed the TDP, Coimbatore to conduct enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner and others under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (DPT) Rules, 1955 and to send a report at an early date. 22. In para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is categorically stated that the inspection was carried out by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption authorities by taking the assistance of the authorized officers. Para 7 of the counter affidavit is as follows:- "As regard the averment in para 7 and 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that before going to inspect any Government office it is the procedure of the V & AC authorities to attend along with some authorised officers of the Government. In the petitioners case also, Tahsildars of District Supply Supply Office in the cadre of Superintendent attended the inspection. In the petitioners case also, Tahsildars of District Supply Supply Office in the cadre of Superintendent attended the inspection. They are authorised by the Government to enter any Government Office by surprise, to call for the records, and conduct inspections in all the Government Offices, prepare inspection reports and authenticate them for onward transmission to the appropriate authority for taking follow up action. " 23. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned charge memo. The charge memo could not be interfered on the ground that the Tahsildar, who assisted the Vigilance and Anti-corruption authorities, does not belong to Revenue Department and on the other hand, he belongs to District Supply Office. If such a view is taken, that will defeat the very purpose of the Memorandum issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Inspection) Department, that is relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The allegations made by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department against the petitioner and others, are very serious in nature. The allegations are demanding and accepting illegal gratification and allowing touts in the office of the petitioner. All those issues are to be enquired into. The petitioner could not seek to prevent the disciplinary proceedings at the initial stage itself citing this type of technical objections. This Court cannot interfere with the charge memo, unless the concerned authority acted malafide or has no jurisdiction to issue the charge memo. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority, who issued the charge memo, lacks jurisdiction and on the other hand, the petitioner finds fault with the inspecting officials. As stated above, the inspection was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department. Therefore, the main inspecting officials were the Vigilance and Anti-corruption authorities and the assisting officers were from the District Supply Office. Instead of facing the enquiry and answering the charges, the petitioner has chosen to question the charge memo, which is not permissible. 24. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with a direction to the third respondent to dispose the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.