The adoption of disciplinary rules by a corporation makes them applicable to its employees, and a charge memo can only be challenged on limited grounds.

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The charge memo dated 20.10.2012 issued against the writ petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is now working as Upper Division Clerk in the respondent Corporation. On account of certain allegations, a charge memo has been issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 20.10.2012. The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted here under :

"Article-1 :

That the said Thiru S.Raja, while functioning as Lower Division Clerk in the Corporate Office, Puducherry Power Corporation Limited, Puducherry during the period from 17.02.1999 to 31.12.2004 was directed to produce Typewriting (English) Certificate issued by the appropriate Government in support of his possessing the requisite technical qualification vide Memorandum No. 1150/PPCL/MD/Estt/99-2000 dt.07.12.1999 of the Managing Director, PPCL, Puducherry. In response to that, the said Thiru S.Raja, Lower Division Clerk submitted a photocopy of a fake Typewriting (English) Certificate No. 684872 dated 6th May 2000 purported to have been issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai vide his letter no. nil dated 19.10.2000. That the said act of Thiru S.Raja, LDC amounts to grave misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-2 :

By providing the fake Junior Grade Typewriting (English) Certificate no.684872 dated 6th May 2000 that the said Thiru S.Raja became qualified to fulfil recruitment rules to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Puducherry Power Corporation Limited and was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the PPCL w.e.f 17.02.1999. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Thiru S.Raja subsequently got promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 31.12.2004 and thus he is guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 3(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-3 :

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Thiru S.Raja, UDC, who was instructed to furnish the original Junior Gr.Typewriting (English) Certificate for verification and to ascertain the genuineness vide this office memorandum no.1417/PPCL/MD/Estt/2011-12 dt 19.11.2011, did not furnish the certification till now for verification. So, it is clear that he did not appear for Government Technical Examination for Junior Gr. Typewriting (English) Certificate during Feb 2000 and did not pass the examination and hence could not produce the certificate sought for by the PPCL, Puducherry and thus the act of Thiru S.Raja is so grossly immoral and amounts to misconduct violating Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."

3. Annexure-Ii to the charge memo provides Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehavior in support of the articles of charges framed against the petitioner.

4. Annexure-Iii provides a list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority for framing of the charges.

5. Annexure-Iv to the charge memo denotes the list of the witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner. On perusal of the allegations, set out in the impugned charge memo, this Court is of an opinion that the allegations are certainly serious and warranting enquiry. The writ petitioner instead of submitting explanation/objection, has chosen to file the writ petition, challenging the very charge memo itself.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner raised a ground by stating that the Central Government disciplinary Rules are not applicable to the writ petitioner. The respondent is a Corporation and an Industry and the writ petitioner is a work man and therefore, the Central Government Rules are not applicable in respect of the services of the writ petitioner.

7. The said contention has been rebutted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent with reference to the c