Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2091
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
M. Panneerselvam
Versus
The District Collector, Thiruvarur District & Another
W.P.No.2081 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On :05-02-2010
For the Petitioners:P. Vijendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.K. Vishnupriya, AGP.
The discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the reluctance to interfere with show-cause notices or charge-sheets unless they are wholly without jurisdiction or illegal.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Challenge to order under Rule 56(1)(c) of Fundamental Rules - G.O.Ms.No.144, P&AR Department, dated 8.6.2007 - Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 56(1)(c) - The court discussed the relevance of various judgments cited by the petitioner and their applicability to the case. The court emphasized the need to decide cases on legal principles and not on moral views. It also highlighted the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the reluctance to interfere with show-cause notices or charge-sheets unless they are wholly without jurisdiction or illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders preventing retirement and suspension under Rule 56(1)(c) of Fundamental Rules. The petitioner alleged the orders were illegal and passed to prevent superannuation. The petitioner also raised allegations of mala fide targeting based on caste.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating it was misconceived and there were no grounds warranting interference with the impugned orders at that stage.
Issues: Challenge to orders preventing retirement and suspension, allegations of mala fide targeting based on caste.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to decide cases on legal principles and not on moral views. It also highlighted the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the reluctance to interfere with show-cause notices or charge-sheets unless they are wholly without jurisdiction or illegal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous petition was closed.
Heard both sides. This Writ petition challenges the order, dated 29.01.2010 and the order dated 31.1.2010 under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules issued by the second respondent. The petitioner though had reached the age of superannuation by 31.1.2010, he was not allowed to retire so as to enquire into grave charges and in public interest. The petitioner was informed that he will be paid sustenance allowance equivalent to pension.
2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the order is illegal and is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was contrary to the sprit of G.O.Ms.No.144, P&AR Department, dated 8.6.2007.
3. The order suspending the petitioner on the last day is attacked on the following ground: that two persons belonging to ruling party made a complaint against the petitioner. The second respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi Taluk conducted an enquiry on 05.02.2009. The petitioner gave his reply. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Malavarayanallur. The second respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) sent a memo on 19.1.2010 to Tahsildar, Mannargudi asking him to enquire and submit a report. The Tahsildar made enquiries with the complainant and the Ex-President of Nallikottai village. He sent a report. The belated action taken by the second respondent was to prevent the petitioner from retiring from service on his reaching the age of superannuation on 31.1.2010.
4. The petitioner informed his Association of Government Employees belonging to SC/ST Employees. Its office bearers gave a representation to the District Revenue Officer. A further complaint was made to the higher authorities. It is the stand of the petitioner that the second respondent belonged to Vanniar community. He was targeting the officials belonging to Scheduled Caste and hence the false charge made against the petitioner. Though such an allegation was made, the second respondent was not made as a party in his individual capacity in order to prove the so-called allegation of mala fide.
5. It was also stated that the petitioner was suspended on 29.1.2010 under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the suspension order, dated 29.1.2010, it was stated as follows:
"Whereas charges under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules have been framed against Thiru.M.PanneerSelvam Village Administrative Officer, Malavarayanallur and formerly Village Administrative Officer 31 Thalikkottai Village Mannargudi Taluk, for the reasons of willfully included the Government poramboke lands of River poramboke and Channel poramboke lands and willfully committed more extent than the actual extent of the survey number in the beneficiary list and willfully included the survey number for grant of relief amount which is not available in the Village A register and distributing relief amount for crop damages during Heavy Rain-2008-09 in respect of Nallikkotai Vilage hamlet of 31. Thalikkottai Revenue Village Mannargudi Taluk which results a loss of Revenue to Government amounting Rs.68,438/- (Rupees Sixty Eight thousand four hundred and Thirty Eight only)."
6. Pursuant to the order of suspension, a further order came to be passed on 31.1.2010 preventing the petitioner from retiring from service under Rule 56(1)(c).
7. The case of the petitioner was that 31.1.2010 was Sunday and it was served only on 1.2.2010 by affixure and the notice was pasted on the door of his house. The petitioner tore of the said notice from the wall and filed it before this court as the original impugned order. Therefore, it was contended that both the orders were illegal and they were passed only with a view to prevent the petitioner from getting superannuated.
8. Mr.P.Vijendran, counsel appearing for petitioner referred to the several decisions in support of his contentions. The counsel insisted that they are all decisions of the Supreme Court and are binding on this court under Art
