Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 24
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Xavier Dhanaraj
Versus
The Secretary to Government Public Works Department Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P. Nos. 27590 of 2003, 22288, 22289 and 32758 of 2004 and 24557 to 24559 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. No. 33711 of 2003 in W.P. No. 27590 of 2003, W.P.M.P. Nos. 26986 and 26988 of 2004 in W.P. Nos. 22288 and 22289 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 39660 of 2004 in W.P. No. 32758 of 2004
Decided on : 03-01-2008
For the Petitioner:N.S. Nandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Dhandapani, Spl. G.P.
Delay alone cannot be a ground to interfere with disciplinary proceedings, and participation in enquiries waives the right to challenge charge memos.
Headnote:
Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Public Works Department - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - 1995 (3) SCC 134, 1996 (3) SCC 157, 2007 AIR SCW 1639
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer, sought promotion as Chief Engineer and challenged disciplinary proceedings against him. The Tribunal dismissed his application due to pending disciplinary proceedings and previous punishment. The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the charge memos and delay in initiating charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the challenge to charge memos cannot be entertained as the petitioner participated in the enquiries. The Court also cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that delay alone cannot be a ground to interfere with charge memos.
Issues: Challenge to charge memos, delay in initiating charges, and promotion eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that delay alone cannot be a ground to interfere with charge memos and emphasized that the petitioner did not raise any grievance of prejudice due to the delay.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, and the Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. No costs were awarded.
K. Chandru, J.
The petitioner in all these seven writ petitions is the same person. He was working as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Salem. He filed an Original Application being O.A. No.2463 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, TAT] seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for inclusion of his name in the panel for Superintending Engineer fit for promotion as Chief Engineer for the year 1994-95 and also to promote him on par with his Junior ignoring the charge memos and disciplinary proceedings as illegal and arbitrary and pass appropriate orders.
2. The said Original Application was dismissed by an order dated 09.01.2003. In paragraph 8 of the order, it was stated as follows:
Para 8: ".... The applicant was punished with stoppage of increment for one year and this order was passed in December 1993. Therefore the applicant could not be considered for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion because the punishment was in currency. The applicant seems to have not filed any application challenging the order of promotion. Subsequently also disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and they are pending and therefore the applicant cannot ask for promotion in the meantime."
3. Further, in paragraph 9, the TAT also held as follows:
Para 9: "The applicant was placed under suspension on the eve of his retirement and was not permitted to retire. But subsequently this has been revoked and by an order passed in February 2002 the applicant has been allowed to retire but subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings. So unless the disciplinary proceedings are disposed of and applicant is exonerated of all the charges there is no question of considering the applicant at this stage for retrospective promotion or inclusion of his name in the panel. If and when the applicant gets cleared of all the charges and if the applicant is establish that there is no justification for denial of his promotion prior to his retirement, it is open to him to come and ask for appropriate remedies. Any how, in view of the fact that disciplinary proceedings are not yet over and the applicant has been charged and enquiries are pending in respect of grave charges, denial of promotion to the applicant is justified. The application is therefore dismissed."
[Emphasis added]
It is against this order of the TAT, W.P. No. 27590 of 2003 was filed.
4. W.P. No. 27590 of 2003 was admitted on 010. 2003. At the time when the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, viz., on 28.02.1998, he had three charge memos dated 15. 1992, 25. 1997 and 03.02.1998 pending and he was not allowed to retire. As against the charge memo dated 15. 1992, the petitioner had given explanation dated 16. 1992. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 12.02.1993 was given to the petitioner. The first respondent disagreed with the findings of the enquiry report and called for further representation vide show cause memo dated 17. 1994. The petitioner had replied to the same vide reply dated 15. 1997. Thereafter, by an order dated 15.02.2002, the first respondent issued a show cause notice as to why Rs.1153/- should not be recovered from his Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity. It is at this stage, the petitioner had moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with O.A. No. 1167 of 2003 challenging the charge memo. By filing W.P. No. 24558 of 2006, the petitioner got the said O.A. transferred to this Court.
5. Similarly, with reference to the charge memo dated 25. 1997, an enquiry was completed and show cause notice was given disagreeing with the Enquiry Officers findings and the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1168 of 2003 during March 2003. Subsequently, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court by filing W.P. No. 24559 of 2006. Even in that O.A., the challenge was to the disciplinary proceedings which have been completed.
6. As against the charge memo dated 03.02.1998, the enqu
