R. MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
D. Shanmugasundram – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 13.09.2022 made in W.P.No.15965 of 2017 on the file of this Court and allow the writ appeal.)
Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15965 of 2017 dated 13.09.2022, insofar as the challenge to the Charge Memo was rejected on the premise that, the writ petition against Charge Memo ought not to be entertained.
2. Brief Facts:
The appellant was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1975 and promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-I during the year 1999. He reached the age of Superannuation on 30.06.2017 A.N. While so, a Charge Memo dated 16.06.2017 was issued against the appellant, 14 days prior to his date of retirement. The allegation levelled against the appellant is that he undervalued certain documents, which were presented for registration, resulting in financial loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.39,19,219/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen only). Details regarding the documents, which were undervalued at the time of registration were set-out in the Annexure
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India
Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179
State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154
M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 88
Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565
Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
The error of law in discharge of quasi-judicial function can be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
The issuance of a charge memo after significant delay and without adherence to natural justice principles constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Judicial review of disciplinary charge memos is limited; premature quashing is improper if charges are supported by evidence, requiring internal resolutions first.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.