Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3676 (MAD)

C. S. MUTHALAGU v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

2018-10-09

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2018
JUDGMENT S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. 1. The charge memo dated 26.01.2015 issued under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (C&A) Rules 1955, dated 26.01.2015 by the second respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police through direct recruitment in the year 1987. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from July 2010. On account of certain allegations, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 26.01.2015. The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder: IMAGE 3. Annexure-2 to the charge memo provide the statements of allegations and imputations and Annexure-3 provides the list of documents relied upon by the authorities. Annexure-4 provides the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner. 4. The present writ petition is filed on the ground that there is a delay in initiation of charges and the writ petitioner has not been given an opportunity to explain his case before the authorities competent and therefore, the principles of natural justice has been violated. Though, it is stated that the second respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the charge memo, the same has not been substantiated with reference to the Discipline and Appeal Rules. As per the Discipline and Appeal Rules, it is not necessary that the disciplinary authorities who is competent to impose punishment should frame the charges. The superior authority to the delinquent is empowered to place an employee under suspension and can frame the charges. The only requirement is that a final order in the disciplinary proceedings must be passed by the disciplinary authorities, as specified in the Rules. Thus, the very ground raised in this regard by the writ petitioner deserves no merit consideration. The writ petitioner in stead of submitting an explanation with reference to the allegations set out in the charge memo, has chosen to file the present writ petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents informed this Court that the charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner based on the recommendations of the CBCID which investigated the cases as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents informed this Court that the charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner based on the recommendations of the CBCID which investigated the cases as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The petitioner has a part to play in the Criminal case i.e., failing to investigate the case and filed charge sheet hurriedly to help the family of the deceased to claim false insurance compensation. This being the allegations based on the recommendations of the CBCID, the charge memo was framed against the writ petitioner. It is stated that accordingly to Police stating Order 80(2)(b) volume I, it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent to award a penalty or even that the enquiry should be conducted by such authority. The charges can be framed and the enquiry held by any officer acting under the orders of the authority competent to award the penalty. Further, the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Chief office memo Rc.No.183374/Crime II(2)/2012 dated 07.01.2013 has authorized the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range to approve the charge memo. Thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice or the Rules in force. 6. This being the serious allegations framed against the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner has to participate in the process of enquiry to establish his innocence or otherwise by producing documents or by adducing evidences. 7. A charge memo can be challenged on the limited grounds and the judicial review against the charge memo is to be exercised cautiously. The writ petition against the charge memo can be entertained, if the same has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of malafides are raised or if the same is in violation of the statutory rules in force. Even in case of raising allegation of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegations are raised has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any one of these grounds, no writ can be issued against the charge memo. 8. 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. In the absence of any one of these grounds, no writ can be issued against the charge memo. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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. 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." 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. In view of the legal principles settled by the Courts as stated above, the present writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.