Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3548 (MAD)

S. Nalankilli v. Collector, Vellore

2013-09-30

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment 1. The third respondent was appointed on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant on 27.05.1987. The appointment was made pursuant to the death of his father on 12.08.1986, while in service. A disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the third respondent stating that he suppressed certain materials while securing the compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the first respondent passed an order dated 6.11.2008 dropping all the charages. 2. The petitioner, who was working as Deputy Block Development Officer (Noon Meal Progrrame), at B.D.O. Office, Timiri, Vellore District, has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 6.11.2008 of the first respondent and further, sought for a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders. 3. When the Writ Petition was filed, the third respondent was also working as Deputy Block Development Officer by dint of securing further promotion. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegation made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the matter is between the first respondent and the third respondent, and the petitioner is in no way concerned with the departmental action taken by the first respondent against the third respondent and ultimate dropping of the charges. The first respondent has also sought to justify the order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the third respondent is removed from service, he will have better promotional prospects. It is the reason stated for maintaining the Writ Petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, has submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is nothing to do with the impugned order that resulted in dropping the charges against the third respondent. 8. I have considered the submissions made by either side. 9. When this Court put a question as to first argue on the maintainability of the Writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will get better promotional prospects if the third respondent is removed from service. However, no such averment is found in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 10. The impugned order is dropping the charges against the third respondent. However, no such averment is found in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 10. The impugned order is dropping the charges against the third respondent. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide as to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer or to record different findings. In this case, the first respondent has differed with the findings of the enquiry officer and has come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved. It is the domain of the first respondent to decide the disciplinary matters. This court cannot interfere with such matters, particularly, at the instance of the petitioner, who is nothing to do with the same. 11. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus-standi in seeking to quash the impugned order. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.