Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Subbiah, C. Saravanan, JJ.
M. Mary Kala Jayanthi - Petitioner
Versus
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 14481 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 14495 of 2019
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Pension Rules - Departmental Proceedings - Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - The court held that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was time-barred as it was instituted after the lapse of four years from the event, and no charges had been framed against the petitioner. The invocation of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 on a future date was deemed to be a mere empty formality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a steno typist in the Metropolitan Magistrates Court, retired and received a memorandum challenging her entitlement to exemption under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The petitioner challenged the memorandum, arguing that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was time-barred and deemed it to be a mere empty formality, as no charges had been framed against the petitioner within the stipulated time frame.
Issues: The key issue was whether the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was justified under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the departmental proceeding was time-barred as it was instituted after the lapse of four years from the event, and no charges had been framed against the petitioner. The invocation of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 on a future date was deemed to be a mere empty formality.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, stating that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was time-barred and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
JUDGMENT :
C. Saravanan, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records culminating in the impugned official memorandum bearing reference number Dis.No.1102/2018 Con dated 15.04.2019 issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and quash the same.
1. The petitioner joined service in the year 1981 as a steno typist in the Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2016 and was therefore allowed to retire.
2. Before her retirement, an enquiry in respect of a complaint against the petitioner was pending. However, the said complaint did not materialize into a full fledged departmental proceeding in form of a charge sheet against the petitioner either while in service or after her retirement.
3. Earlier, a complaint was lodged by one Thiru.Chinnaraju on 18.12.2013 with the Registrar General of this Court on 19.12.2013 regarding missing documents in C.C.No.19494-96 of 2005 which were transferred to the Fast Track Court during November 2012.
4. Three bundles dispatched by the petitioner to the Fast Track Court on 21.11.2012 were returned back to the XIV Metropolitan Magistrates Court by the Fast Track Court on 28.11.2012 with certain remarks.
5. The three case bundles were re- transferred back to the Fast Track Court on 09.07.2014 after duly indexing C.C.No.19494 of 2005 along with a note stating that the missing documents in the other two courts bundles were not traceable.
6. Though explanations were called for from the petitioner, the respondents did not speed up the proceeding. Meanwhile, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30.04.2016.
7. After her superannuation, the petitioner received a memorandum dated 20.06.2018 bearing reference DIS.No.1102/2018.Con from the 1st respondent stating that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The petitioner therefore sent an explanation to the first respondent on 18.07.2018.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner received an Office Memorandum in Dis.No.1102/2018 CON dated 31.10.2018 which called for an explanation from the petitioner on or before 19.11.2018 to proceed further in accordance with rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 to which the petitioner also replied on 16.11.2018.
9. In her reply, the petitioner stated that she was working as an interpreter before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Egmore, Chennai from 10.05.2012 to 04.05.2013 and that post of both Bench Clerks and that an interpreter were vacant from 2011 and therefore, the XIV Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Egmore, Chennai was assisted only by FIR clerk And Record Clerk till then.
10. According to the petitioner, when she joined the office of the XV Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Egmore, Chennai on 10.05.2012 she found that the records were left unattended and due to vacancy.
11. According to the petitioner apart from handling the court were, she prepared the list based on available records for being transferred to the Fast Track Court. According to the petitioner, she personally suffered in updating the court records left unattended due to vacancy before her joining the XIV Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Egmore, Chennai.
12. The petitioner further stated that though the counsel for the complainant had complained about the missing documents from 2011, which was prior to her joining the said court, later an oral complaint was made by the said counsel for the complainant against the petitioner as if she was responsible for the missing documents.
13. After filing the above reply, the petitioner decided to challenge Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2018 bearing reference Dis.No.1102/2018 CON in W.P.No.30090 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed by an order dated 24.01.2019. In the said order, the petitioner was directed to approach the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was directed to pass a speaki
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
