Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
R. Janani Soundarya - Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Chennai - Respondent
W.P (MD) No. 29529 of 2023 & W.M.P (MD) No. 25491 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2024
Civil Services - Charge Memo - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 2, Rule 12(2), Rule 16, Rule 17(b) - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, particularly Rule 2, Rule 12(2), Rule 16, and Rule 17(b), and their application in the case. The court highlighted that a charge memo could be issued by any authority who is higher than the delinquent, even if he is not the competent authority to impose major penalty. In cases of deputation, if the delinquency had happened in the deputed post, the borrowing authority is entitled to issue a charge memo under Rule 17(b), conduct an inquiry, and submit a report to the Government. The court concluded that the charge memo issued by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation was legally sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by a Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Chennai-Kanniyakumari Industrial Corridor Project, challenging the charge memo issued to her by the respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector and later worked as a General Manager of Aavin Madurai. The charge memo was issued based on audit objections related to financial losses and non-compliance during her tenure at Aavin Madurai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge memo issued by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation was legally sustainable. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the charges against the writ petitioner.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the charge memo issued by the respondent, who was not the appointing authority. The court also considered the non-furnishing of documents and the jurisdiction of the Managing Director of Aavin Madurai to issue the charge memo.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, particularly Rule 2, Rule 12(2), Rule 16, and Rule 17(b). The court emphasized that a charge memo could be issued by any authority who is higher than the delinquent, even if he is not the competent authority to impose major penalty.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to grant order of and all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 23.11.2023 in e.f.vz;.14331/g.F.njh.c2/2022-3 and quash the same.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by a Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Chennai-Kanniyakumari Industrial Corridor Project challenging the charge memo issued to her on 23.11.2023 by the respondent herein.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
(ii) The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Rt.No.4002 Public (Special-A) Department, dated 20.09.2019 placed the services of the writ petitioner at the disposal of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Union (Aavin,) Madurai for appointment as its General Manager. The petitioner was working as a General Manager of Aavin Madurai between 27.09.2019 and 06.02.2021. Later, she was posted as District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi on 27.01.2021 and she worked there till 31.03.2022. As on today, the petitioner is working as Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Chennai-Kanniyakumari Industrial Corridor project at Kumbakonam.
(iii) While she was working in the present post, she was issued with a memo by the respondent herein on 20.03.2023 calling for her explanation relating to 3 audit objections for the financial year 2017-18. Along with the said memo, a copy of the relevant audit objections were also annexed. The petitioner herein had submitted her preliminary explanation on 06.04.2023. In the said explanation, the petitioner had requested for furnishing 13 documents and has sought further time of 15 days to submit her final explanation based upon the documents to be furnished.
(iv) The petitioner was issued with the impugned charge memo on 23.11.2023 by the respondent herein. The summary of the charges are as follows:
(a) As per Item No. 15 of the audit objection, 22,500 kg of ghee was supplied to Tirupathi Devasthanam and the same was returned due to quality defects. There are no records to establish the sale or return of those items.
(b) As per Charge No.2, Madurai Aavin had incurred a financial loss of Rs.3,42,024/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Two Thousand and Twenty Four only) towards entry tax and transportation charges in view of the fact that the supplied ghee has been returned by Tirupathi Devasthanam.
(c) As per Charge No.3, the petitioner had not sent any explanation to the notice issued by Tirupathi Devasthanam for forfeiting the EMD amount of Rs.16,90,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh and Ninety Thousand only) for delayed despatch of the products. Therefore, Madurai Aavin had incurred financial loss of Rs.16,90,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh and Ninety Thousand only).
Challenging the said charge memo, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Contentions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner are as follows:
(i) The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is that, at present, the petitioner is working as a District Revenue Officer falling within the Group-I of Tamil Nadu Civil Services. Therefore, the respondent is not the appointing authority, but only the Government. Hence, the charge memo issued by an authority who is neither an appointing authority nor a disciplinary authority is bad in the eye of law.
(ii) The learned Senior Counsel relied upon explanation to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and contended that even though a member of civil service has bee
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, a charge memo could be issued by any authority who is higher than the delin....
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.
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 court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and legal disciplinary proceedings and held that disciplinary actions must be based on valid grounds and not be initiated for collateral purposes.
The court ruled that a second charge memo, being a replica of a previously quashed memo, was invalid, emphasizing the principle of non-duplication of disciplinary charges.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
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
