Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2318
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. POORNIMA, J.
M. Chandrasekar - Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Public Libraries, Chennai and Ors. – Respondents
W.P(MD) No.20553 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.14711 & 14712 of 2016
Decided On : 30-04-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karthik
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader.
The disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction, and the petitioner was afforded fair opportunity during the proceedings, thus upholding the punishment imposed.
Headnote:
(A) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b) - Writ Petition for Certiorarified Mandamus - The petitioner challenged the Charge Memo and punishment imposed by the District Library Officer, claiming lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The court found that the disciplinary authority had the requisite powers and that the petitioner was afforded fair opportunity during proceedings. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 10, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authority - The court ruled that the disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction as per the delegation of powers from the Director of Public Libraries. The petitioner’s participation in the proceedings without objection estopped him from later challenging the authority. (Paras 12, 14)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to present his case, and the punishment was not imposed until after considering his representation. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a librarian, was suspended and faced disciplinary action without misconduct. He claimed the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Charge Memo and that the proceedings were arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction and that the proceedings were conducted fairly.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the disciplinary authority had the necessary powers and that the petitioner was afforded a fair hearing, thus dismissing the writ petition.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(R. POORNIMA, J.)
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Memo Ref. Na.Ka.No.3484/Aa/2014 dated 14.01.2015 on the file of Respondent No.2, impugned Report of Findings of the Inquiry officer dated 15.03.2016 on the file of Respondent No.3 forwarded vide R.C.No.3484/B/2014 dated 31.03.2016 on the file of Respondent No.2 and consequential impugned order of punishment imposed in Na.Ka. 3484/Aa/2014 dated 12.07.2016 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore all attendant benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief are as follows:
(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Village Librarian and promoted to Librarian Grade III and working at Vettamangalam Library. He was a trade union office bearer and he used to bring to the knowledge of the authorities the problem faced by the employees.
(b) Suddenly the petitioner was suspended on 31.12.2014 though he was not committed any misconduct. Charge memo in Ref.Na.Ka.3484/Aa/2014 was issued by the 2nd respondent on 14.01.2015. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority was only a District Library Officer (In-charge) who was delegated with powers as per proceedings Ref.Na.Ka.No.5876/A1/2008 of respondent No.1 did not have any power to initiate disciplinary conferred upon him. The 2nd Respondent was in-charge officer of the said post. He has no authority to issue the charge memo.
(c) After conducting the enquiry, the 2nd respondent forwarded the impugned Findings of the inquiry officer annexing his communication, Ref.Na.Ka.3484/Aa/2014 dated 31.03.2016 and an opportunity was given to the petitioner. Without considering the petitioner’s submission, the Enquiry Officer has come to a pre- conclusion to agree with the findings that he was guilty of charges framed against him and issued the impugned order dated 12.07.2016.
(d) The punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect has been imposed by the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, without any jurisdiction.
(e) The Enquiry Officer has not applied his mind in concluding that the charges have been proved against him and the Disciplinary Authority also failed to consider his detailed submissions made refuting the charges and the impugned order has been mechanically passed in an arbitrary manner without adhering to the principles of equity and natural justice and filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the following among other grounds:-
1. The disciplinary authority who was not delegated power to issue Charge Memo, Order of Punishment, and the same is without Jurisdiction, visitiating the disciplinary proceedings relied the Judgement in Central Bank of India vs. C. Bernard reported in 1991 (1) SCC 319 as follows:-
"...2. In the instant case, the impugned order of punishment was quashed not because the merits of the case so demanded but because the technical plea of incompetence succeeded.
Therefore, the High Court was right in quashing the impugned Order of punishment but having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, it should not have ordered payment of 'all consequential benefits' flowing from the declaration that the impugned order was bad in law. The order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the respondent will be paid 50% of the consequential benefits and not all the consequential benefits. Except for this modification, the rest of the order of the High Court will stand."
2. The disciplinary proceedings failed to consider his detailed representation and perused the impugned order mechanically.
3. The order perused without following the Rule 18 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service ( Disciplinary and Appeals) Rules.
4. Before hearing the representation of the petitioner in t
