Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 1338
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
S.Murugavel - Appellant
Versus
District Revenue Officer & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition No.3362 of 2005
Decided On : 15 June 2006
The court will not interfere with administrative decisions unless there is evidence of perversity, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction, and the petitioner shows sufficient cause for court intervention.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Service Matter - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (C&A) Rules, Rule 17(b), Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, Rule 17 (b), Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, Rule 23(1) (c) (i)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department, challenged the proceedings leading to his compulsory retirement based on charges of illegal activities. He argued that the charges were vague and ambiguous, and the subsequent punishment was invalid. The respondents contended that the charges were serious and in violation of the Government Servants Conduct Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner participated in a detailed enquiry and failed to prove perversity, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction in the procedures adopted by the respondents. The court held that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause to interfere with the impugned proceedings at that stage, but allowed the petitioner to file an appeal as provided for under the law.
Issues: Validity of charges, legality of subsequent punishment, availability of alternate remedies, and sufficiency of cause for court intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court will only interfere with administrative decisions if there is evidence of perversity, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction, especially when efficacious remedies are available. The petitioner must show sufficient cause to warrant court intervention.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration within four weeks.
(The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.)
The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the proceedings in Na.Ka. No.40767/97/A5, dated 17.09.2004, of the Personal Assistant (General) to Collector, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No.73320/2004/A5, dated 24.01.2005, of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service with all attendant and consequential benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered the service of Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in 1982 in the Taluk Office, Gudalur, Nilgiris District. At the time of filing of the writ petition, he was working as a Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, Udumalpet, in Coimbatore District. He would be retiring on 28.02.2007, on reaching the age of superannuation. He has been maintaining an unblemished record of service in his career spanning over 23 years. While so, the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, issued a charge memo, dated 19.0 4.2000, under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (C&A) Rules, framing four charges against him. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 28.08.2000, denying them and by adducing material evidences to show that he had never indulged in any of the activities alleged against him. One of the charges relate to the alleged illegal transportation of rice to Kerala and no specific details such as the name of the merchant, date, events, etc., were mentioned either in the charges or imputation of the charges. Therefore, it was pointed that the charges were vague and ambiguous.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Tahsildar (Distress Relief), Pollachi Taluk, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report on 22.01.200 1. In the enquiry report, it was stated that there were four charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner had produced material and documentary evidence supporting his case that he was not involved in the alleged activities. The first two charges were the main charges and the other two charges were only a corollary of the main charges. In respect of the two charges, there were no details relating to the involvement or connection of the charge sheeted employees and that there were no specific details available, hence there was no scope to enquire into the charges.
5. It is further stated that the enquiry report, dated 22.01.2001, was communicated to the petitioner and he had submitted a representation, on 02.05.2001, stating that since the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges were not proved, the petitioner had requested that the charges may be dropped. However, the Personal Assistant (General) of the District Collector, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, not being satisfied with the findings of the said Enquiry Officer, had appointed the Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, as the new Enquiry Officer to proceed further with the enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer denying the charges. However, no enquiry proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the second respondent himself had directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 21.06.2004. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the second respondent and denied all the charges. However, the second respondent had held that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and he had further held that the charges were proved based on his findings. Hence, the second respondent herein had imposed on the petitio
