Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
P. Chinnadurai
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai
Writ Petition No.30503 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.2 of 2008 & 1 of 2010
Decided on : 27-01-2012
The court quashed the revised charge memo issued to the petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, Grade-I, for charges 1 and 4, which related to the same set of allegations that had already been acquitted in a criminal case. The court held that it would be unjust and unfair to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand, as the facts and evidence in both the departmental and criminal proceedings were the same. The court also held that the respondent-Department had not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of the departmental proceedings, which rendered the revised charge memo invalid. However, the court declined to interfere with the revised charge memo in respect of charges 2 and 3, as the departmental proceedings had concluded and the enquiry report had been sent to the Government for further action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, Grade-I, was issued a revised charge memo for four charges, including demanding and accepting illegal gratification, possession of unaccounted money, and employing an unauthorized person to perform official work. The petitioner challenged the revised charge memo on the grounds that it was contrary to the rules and principles of natural justice, that it was not maintainable either in law or on facts, and that it was issued after a lapse of seven years and after the petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same set of allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revised charge memo in respect of charges 1 and 4 was not maintainable, as the petitioner had already been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same set of allegations. The court also found that the respondent-Department had not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of the departmental proceedings, which rendered the revised charge memo invalid. However, the court declined to interfere with the revised charge memo in respect of charges 2 and 3, as the departmental proceedings had concluded and the enquiry report had been sent to the Government for further action.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised charge memo was contrary to the rules and principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the revised charge memo was maintainable either in law or on facts? 3. Whether the revised charge memo was issued after a lapse of seven years and after the petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same set of allegations?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revised charge memo in respect of charges 1 and 4 was not maintainable, as the petitioner had already been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same set of allegations. The court also found that the respondent-Department had not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of the departmental proceedings, which rendered the revised charge memo invalid. However, the court declined to interfere with the revised charge memo in respect of charges 2 and 3, as the departmental proceedings had concluded and the enquiry report had been sent to the Government for further action.
Final Decision: The court quashed the revised charge memo in respect of charges 1 and 4, and declined to interfere with the revised charge memo in respect of charges 2 and 3.
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent-Inspector General of Registration, in connection with the impugned charge memo issued by the respondent in Memo No.49429/B1/2001, dated 17.11.2008 and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is as follows:
(a) The petitioner entered into service as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II in the Registration Department in 1986. He was promoted as Sub-Registrar, Grade-I in 1997. He rendered meritorious service throughout.
(b) While the petitioner was serving as Sub-Registrar, Grade-I, Guidelines, at Erode District Registrar Office during 1998, one Muthukumar, a native of Kodumudy executed a partition deed of the family property at Kodumudy Sub-Registrar Office on 20.3.2001. The said document was referred to the petitioner for inspection to fix the value of the land only. The petitioner, after receiving the documents, inspected the land on 26.3.2001 and submitted his valuation report to the Sub-Registrar Office at Kodumudy. The Sub-Registrar at Kodumudy has to follow the guidelines given by the petitioner and also the guidelines for the building and thereafter only, he has to fix the value of the property for the purpose of registration. But in the Sub-Registrar's Office, there was a delay in making appropriate entries in the partition deed and handing over to Muthukumar.
(c) Aggrieved by the same, the said Muthukumar preferred a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, stating that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the guideline value to be fixed for the partition deed. But the fact remains that the petitioner already fixed the value and sent the papers to the Sub-Registrar Office on 28.3.2001. But in respect of the building, the guideline value has to be fixed by the Sub-Registrar at Kodumudy by another inspection and submit the documents. The complainant, without ascertaining on whose fault the document is yet to be registered, has submitted a false complaint, followed by which, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.2/AC/01 on the file of V & AC, Erode for an offence under Section 7(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(d) After registering the criminal case, a trap was laid and when the amount was paid to the petitioner, the petitioner refused to receive the amount, but the amount was paid to one Sureshbabu, who was trapped. Following the trap organised by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.10.2001 and he was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Erode on 30.10.2011. The petitioner submits that at no point of time, he has demanded illegal gratification and accepted the same. It is further submitted that PW2, with whom the petitioner had heated exchanges when he came to the District Registrar Office and directed the petitioner to cause local inspection and fix the value of the property, got enraged and preferred a false complaint.
(e) After investigation in the criminal case, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 1.8.2003, which was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2003. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 28.4.2004 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
(f) The important witnesses cited in the charge memo are Thiru.Kotteeswaran, Thiru.Muthukumar, Thiru.Suresh Babu and Thiru.Mohan and they are also cited as witnesses in the criminal case. Hence, for the same set of allegations, a criminal case has been registered and departmental enquiry has also been initiated. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.31344 of 2004 challenging the charge memo issued to him. This Court, at the time of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
