Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Matheswaran - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary & Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 24897 of 2018 & W.M.P. No. 28937 of 2018
Decided on : 07-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Jerry V.V. Sundar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D. Suriyanarayanan, Additional Government Pleader.
The judicial review against a charge memo is limited, and the truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to determine.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Disciplinary Proceedings - Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973 - [Charge 1, Charge 2, Charge 3, Charge 4] - The court discussed the charges framed against the Special Tahsildar and emphasized that the judicial review against the charge memo is limited. It highlighted that the truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to determine, and the court's function is one of judicial review, not to examine the correctness or reasonableness of the decision as a matter of fact. The court also cited several cases to support the principle that a charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action and should not be quashed unless issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Special Tahsildar, challenged a charge memo issued against him, alleging misconduct in sanctioning pensions to ineligible beneficiaries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no basis for the charges framed against the writ petitioner and emphasized that the judicial review against the charge memo is limited. It dismissed the writ petition, stating that the writ petitioner should submit his explanation/objections and defend the charges during the course of the enquiry.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the charges framed against the writ petitioner and the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to determine, and the court's function is one of judicial review, not to examine the correctness or reasonableness of the decision as a matter of fact. It also highlighted that a charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action and should not be quashed unless issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in connection with the impugned charge memo in Ser.No.2(4)/24647/2016-2 dated 13.01.2018 issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same.)
1. The charge memo dated 13.01.2018 issued against the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner is working as Special Tahsildar and on account of certain allegations, the charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner. The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder:-
Charge 1:
That Thiru.S.Matheswaran, Special Tahsildar(Social Security Scheme), Salem during the period between 06.02.2014 and 09.08.2014 sanctioned Old Age Pension, Destitute Widow Pension etc., to Tmt.Amutha and 32 others whose applications were enquired and not recommended by Revenue Inspector, Vembadithalam as they were all ineligible. Thus, he was responsible for sanctioning of Old Age Pension to ineligible beneficiaries.
Charge 2:
That Thiru.S.Matheswaran, Special Tahsildar(Social Security Scheme), Salem entertained the 33 applications and passed orders for granting Old Age Pension, by-passing the established procedures of enquiry by himself (or) getting recommendation of field staff such as Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector.
Charge 3:
That Thiru.S.Matheswaran, Special Tahsildar(Social Security Scheme), Salem, by sanctioning pensions under Old Age Pension and other schemes to ineligible persons, he brought loss to Government.
Charge 4:
Thus by his above act, he has demonstrated that he lacked absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated provisions laid down under rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973.
3. Annexure II to the charge memo provides Statement of allegations, namely imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each charge framed against Thiru.S.madheswaran, Special Tahsildar(Social Security Scheme), Salem. Annexure III to the charge memo provides List of documents based on which charges are framed against Thiru.S.Madheswaran, Special Tahsildar(Social Security Scheme), Salem are proposed to be sustained.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that there is no basis for the charges framed against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner urged this Court with reference to certain certificates and orders issued by the authorities, stating that the allegations are incorrect. However, this Court cannot appreciate those documents in view of the fact that all such exercises are to be done only by the competent authority at the time of undertaking the process of enquiry. The complex facts and circumstances can never be adjudicated in a writ proceedings. Disputed facts are to be adjudicated by producing the original documents and by adducing evidences, if necessary. Contrarily, the Hon'ble High Court cannot enter into the venture of adjudicating those facts, which all are yet to be adjudicated and remains only as the charge as of now. It is for the writ petitioner to submit his explanation/objections and defend the charges by availing the opportunities to be provided by the competent authorities at the time of conducting enquiry. Contrarily, the writ petitioner cannot request the Hon'ble High Court to look into those documents, which all are yet to be adjudicated by the competent authorities during the course of enquiry. All such merits in relation to the allegations can never be adjudicated nor a finding can be provided by the Hon'ble High Court in a writ proceedings.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memorandum framed against the writ petitioner. A charge memo can be challenged on a limited ground and a judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and t
