Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Selvaraj - Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Survey & Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai & Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 31317 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided On : 20-11-2017
For the Petitioner:M. Ravi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader Assisted by K. Thangapandi, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a fair procedure in disciplinary proceedings, the importance of maintaining the purity of the civil services, and the directive for the State Government to reconsider the guidelines or frame appropriate guidelines to prevent sufferance of dishonest employees in its services.
Headnote:
charge memo - challenge in writ petition - Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules - Rule 17(b), Rule 17(a) - Circular No.14353/Per.N/93-I, P & AR Department, dated 11.3.1993 - S. Kannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Home Transport-II Department, Chennai and Others {(2009) 8 MLJ 217} - M. Sampoornam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 {W.P.(MD) No.12725 of 2011 decided on 22.3.2013} - G. Prakasam vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai-9 and Others {W.P.No.3558 of 2004 decided on 5.9.2006} - Rule 8, Rule 17(a), Rule 17(b) - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Union of India vs. K.P. Joseph and Others [(1973) 1 SCC 194] - State of Bihar v. Gopi Krisore Prasad (AIR 1960 SC 689) - ONGC v. Dr. M. Iskander Ali (AIR 1980 SC 1242)
Fact of the Case:
The charge memo dated 30.4.2014 issued by the second respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Survey-cum-Draftsman on consolidated monthly pay in the year 1983 and was brought under the regular timescale of pay with effect from 19.9.1995. The services of the writ petitioner was regularised with effect from the year 1996 and he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey thereafter. The writ petitioner claims that he was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Survey in the panel of the year 2013-2014 and the crucial date was 25.4.2014. However, when the writ petitioner was serving as the Sub-Inspector of Survey in the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Coimbatore, he was posted to serve on deputation in the Western Zone of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation in proceedings dated 5.4.2012. The writ petitioner joined duty in the said post on 12.4.2012. The writ petitioner was on medical leave for 30 days from 8.6.2012 to 7.7.2012 and on expiry of the leave, he joined duty on 6.7.2012. However, he was not allowed to join duty and subsequently, joined duty on 18.7.2012. Further, the writ petitioner was relieved from the deputation post and rejoined duty in his parent Department, on 10.7.2013 in the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Coimbatore. Subsequently, by virtue of an order passed by the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai, the writ petitioner was posted to the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Namakkal and he joined duty at Namakkal. However, on account of certain allegations, in the deputation post, a charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 30.4.2014 and the charges against the writ petitioner are extracted as under: -
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry proceedings forthwith and conclude the same by providing opportunity to the writ petitioner as per the rules and pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings as early as possible and preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is also directed to cooperate for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in all respects by the respondents and if any non-cooperation on the part of the writ petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to record such non-cooperation in the enquiry proceedings itself.
Issues: The issues revolve around the challenge to the charge memo dated 30.4.2014, the applicability of Rule 17(b) and Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, and the enforceability of the guidelines issued by the Government in Circular No.14353/Per.N/93-I, P & AR Department, dated 11.3.1993.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the guidelines issued by the Government are only instructions and cannot form any basis for quashing the charge memo itself. The Court also directed the State Government to reconsider the matter and withdraw the guidelines or frame appropriate guidelines, which will not result in sufferance of the dishonest employees in its services. The Court emphasized the need for a fair procedure, which accords with the principles of natural justice, and the importance of maintaining the purity of the civil services.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction for the respondents to proceed with the enquiry proceedings and conclude the same within a period of six months, and the writ petitioner is directed to cooperate for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
1. The charge memo dated 30.4.2014 issued by the second respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Survey-cum-Draftsman on consolidated monthly pay in the year 1983 and was brought under the regular timescale of pay with effect from 19.9.1995. The services of the writ petitioner was regularised with effect from the year 1996 and he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey thereafter. The writ petitioner claims that he was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Survey in the panel of the year 2013-2014 and the crucial date was 25.4.2014. However, when the writ petitioner was serving as the Sub-Inspector of Survey in the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Coimbatore, he was posted to serve on deputation in the Western Zone of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation in proceedings dated 5.4.2012. The writ petitioner joined duty in the said post on 12.4.2012. The writ petitioner was on medical leave for 30 days from 8.6.2012 to 7.7.2012 and on expiry of the leave, he joined duty on 6.7.2012. However, he was not allowed to join duty and subsequently, joined duty on 18.7.2012. Further, the writ petitioner was relieved from the deputation post and rejoined duty in his parent Department, on 10.7.2013 in the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Coimbatore. Subsequently, by virtue of an order passed by the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai, the writ petitioner was posted to the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Namakkal and he joined duty at Namakkal.
3. However, on account of certain allegations, in the deputation post, a charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 30.4.2014 and the charges against the writ petitioner are extracted as under:-
“TAMIL”
4. Annexure-II, charge memo denotes the statement of allegations and Annexure-III provides the list of documents.
5. The writ petitioner submitted his representation on 10.7.2014, requesting the Competent Authority to convert the charges from 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules to 17(a) of the said Rules. After submitting the representation, the writ petitioner moved the present writ petition, challenging the charge memo.
6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, contended that the writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that the Government issued guidelines in Circular No.14353/Per.N/93-I, P & AR Department, dated 11.3.1993, mentioning the types of cases in which proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are to be initiated. The learned counsel is of the opinion that the respondents have violated the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard and instead of framing charges under Rule 17(a), they have framed the charges under Rule 17(b). Thus, the charge memo itself is to be quashed.
7. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in S. Kannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Home Transport-II Department, Chennai and Others {(2009) 8 MLJ 217}, the relevant paragraphs 4, 10, 11, 12 and 21, are extracted hereunder:-
“4. The one and only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made against the petitioner do not attract the ingredients to frame charges under Rule 17 (b), but only under Rule 17 (a), as there is no dishonest motive, and non consideration of the same by the respondents has vitiated the entire proceedings.
10. For deciding the charges to be framed under Rule 17 (b), the Government, vide Circular No.14353, P&AR (Per.N)/93-1, dated 11.03.1993, has framed certain guidelines, which read as under :
"Without prejudice to the generality of situations involving indiscipline, moral turpitude, corruption etc., charges under rule 17 (
