Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3622 (MAD)

A. Govindaraj v. State

2018-10-08

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2018
JUDGMENT S.M. Subramaniam, J. The charge memos dated 13.10.2004 and 06.03.2002 are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. The charge memos have been issued under rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge memos against the writ petitioner are extracted as below. xxx xxx xxx 3. The allegations against the writ petitioner is that he has caused official loss of Rs. 98,790/- and Rs. 1,03,82,575/- to the Government by wrongly mentioning the land area and by under evaluating the assets, during the field inspection. Annexure 2 provided in the charge memos states the allegations of misconduct and Annexure 3 provides the list of documents. Thus there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charge memos issued against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was recruited as Sub Registrar of the Registration Department on 22.10.1977 and promoted to the post of District Registrar on 01.11.1992. The writ petitioner instead of submitting his explanation/objections in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memo, has chosen to file the present writ petitions on the ground that the charge memo does not attract delinquency for issuance of the charge memos under rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner is of an opinion that the allegations are not grave in nature and therefore the respondents ought not to have framed charges under rule 17 (b) of the said Rules. Further, it is contended that the charges are vague, not specific and without any basis. 4. This court is of an opinion that the charges as extracted earlier are certainly specific. The details of the allegations are set out in the charge memo. The statement of imputations are also provided and the documents are also marked for examination. This being the factum, the very contention raised by the writ petitioner that the charges are vague deserves no merit for consideration in respect of the ground that the charges are not so grave and the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the allegations in relation to the monetary loss caused on account of the commission of the petitioner during the course of his duty. The financial loss caused to the State exchequer cannot be said as simple allegation and certainly it is a grave allegation warranting an action under rule 17 (b) of the said Rules. The financial loss caused to the State exchequer cannot be said as simple allegation and certainly it is a grave allegation warranting an action under rule 17 (b) of the said Rules. Thus, there is no irregularity in respect of the charges framed under rule 17 (b) of the said Rules. The writ petitioner instead of submitting his explanation/objections and establishing his innocence before the enquiry officer has chosen to file the present writ petitions in order to prolong and protract the disciplinary proceeding. Such an attitude can never be encouraged and therefore this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the writ petitioner. 5. This court has already discussed the same in a similar case in W.P.No.17151 of 2005 dated 07.12.2017, wherein it has been held as follows: 3. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memorandum framed against the writ petitioner. A charge memo can be challenged on a limited ground and a judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and the Court can entertain a writ petition on exceptional circumstances. A charge memo can be challenged if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction, an allegation of mala fides is raised if the same is in violation of statutory rules. Even in case of raising the allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any such legal grounds, no charge memo can be entertained by way of writ petition. 4. Intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not preferable. However, only on exceptional circumstances, this Court can issue a direction against the proceedings and not in a routine manner. Mere issuance of a call letter to the writ petitioner directing him to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and the grounds raised in this writ petition cannot be considered. 5. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh,, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and the paragraph 6 which is extracted hereunder: "6. Thus, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and the grounds raised in this writ petition cannot be considered. 5. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh,, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and the paragraph 6 which is extracted hereunder: "6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself." 6. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [Civil Appeal No.2333 of 2007, Decided on May 29, 2012], the Apex Court of India held that normally, a Charge sheet is not liable to be quashed as it does not adversely affect the rights of an employee and does not give rise to any cause of action. A writ lies only when some right of a party is infringed. The charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or otherwise, it may have a cause of action. Hence, writ petition challenging charge sheet by itself is not maintainable. However, it can be quashed on the ground that issuing authority being not competent to issue the same. 7. In the case of Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , it was held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not be ordinarily exercised by quashing a charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. 6. In view of the legal principles settled in the matter for entertaining the writ petition challenging such charge memo, this Court is of an opinion that this Court has not made out any legally acceptable ground for the purpose of interference. According, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.