Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 62
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
G. Anbarasu
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & Others
W.P. No. 14289 of 2012
Decided On: 07-01-2014
For the Petitioner:S. Vijayakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Subbiah, Special Government Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of equality before the law and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Charge Memo - Retirement Benefits - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b), Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a government servant, sought to quash a charge memo and demanded retirement benefits. He argued that the charge memo was illegal as he was permitted to retire without following the rules. The Respondents contended that common disciplinary proceedings were ordered against the Petitioner and another employee, and the Petitioner was permitted to retire without prejudice to the pending disciplinary case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the charge memo against the Petitioner was discriminatory and arbitrary. It noted that the same set of charges against other individuals were dropped, and the Petitioner was singled out for disciplinary action. The Court quashed the charge memo and directed the Respondents to settle the retirement benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the charge memo and the discriminatory treatment of the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioner was discriminated against and that the charge memo was futile and served no purpose. It emphasized the principle of equality before the law and quashed the charge memo to prevent an aberration of justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the charge memo issued to the Petitioner was quashed. The Respondents were directed to settle the retirement benefits within eight weeks.
1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in calling for the records pertaining to the First Respondent in Reference No. 45214/Ser.2(1)/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009 and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for issuance of an order by this Court, directing the Respondents to pay the retirement benefits to him within a stipulated period.
2. The Germane Facts of the Writ Petition:
"a) According to the Petitioner, he joined as Junior Assistant through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1972 and was allotted to Education Department. Subsequently, he was transferred to Revenue Department during the year 1973. After serving for four years, he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1977 in Dharmapuri District. Later, in the year 1984, he got promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. In the year 2003, he was promoted to the post of Tahsildar. Due to bifurcation of Dharmapuri District, he opted to join in Krishnagiri District. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector and appointed as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on 16.03.2006. After serving as Revenue Divisional Officer in Ariyalur District, he got transferred to Vellore District and served as P.A.(General) to the District Collector. He reached superannuation on 28.02.2009.
b) He was served with a charge memo by the First Respondent through Letter No. 45214/Ser.2(1)/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules for certain alleged irregularities said to have been committed by him as a member of the High Level Committee constituted by the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, which was formed on 17.01.2006. The said charge memo was served on him on 27.02.2009 through the Third Respondent.
c) The statement of charges dated 25.02.2009 framed against the Petitioner are as follows:-
Charge-1:
That while you were working as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Dharmapuri and one of the member of High Level Committee Officials you have conducted an enquiry in an apathetical manner regard to the registration of 23 registrants belong to the other district and submitted imperfect suggestions through note files which led for the wrong appointment of 15 job seekers for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Dharmapuri District. Thereby you have violated the directions of the District Collector, Dharmapuri District and defeated the object and purpose of forming of the High Level Committee and therefore, you have committed official misconduct and negligent while discharging your official duties.
Charge-2:
Thus you have lacked in absolute integrity and devotion to duty and have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated the provisions laid down under Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973.
d) The stand of the Petitioner is that he was not at all a member of the High Level Committee when the said High Level Committee constituted by the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 17.01.2006, which took a decision for appointment of 15 job seekers to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. In fact, the High Level Committee met on 21.02.2006 and deliberations took place among the members of the Committee and finally, suggested to issue appointment orders by taking formal approval from the District Collector, Dharmapuri. Thereupon, a file note was put up by the then Committee to the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 02.03.2006 and ultimately, the Collector made remarks to defer till the General Election is concluded.
e) He joined as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on promotion on 16.03.2006. By virtue of his position as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, he became a member of the High Level Committee thereafter. As such, it is the strong stand of the Petitioner that he cannot be held responsible as one of the members of the High Level Committee to have given wrong appointments to 15 job seekers to the post of Secondary Gr
