IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
A. Senthur Pandian S/o M. Ayeraramu - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 16746 of 2023, 6781, 3777 of 2024, W.M.P. Nos. 16020, 16022 of 2023, 4086, 4087 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2025
ORDER :
1. In all the writ petitions, as the writ petitioner is one and the same and the issues are interlinked, three matters were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts which are admitted by the writ petitioner and the respondents in all the three writ petitions are as follows:
The petitioner was directly recruited and selected as Sub-Registrar Grade II on 01.09.2008 through TNPSC examination and on completion of probation on 01.09.2010, his serves were regularized and was posted at Manalurpettai, Villupuram District. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kundrathur Sub-Registrar Office where he was working from 14.07.2014 to 31.12.2017 and later on, he was sent on deputation to Chengalpattu District where he worked for 7 months. Again the petitioner was transferred to Marthandam Sub-Registration Office on 07.01.2019. When the petitioner was working at Chengalpattu in Joint II Sub-Registrar Office, a surprise check was conducted on 31.10.2018 by the District Inspection Cell Officer, Kanchipuram and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai City I Detachment and in the above said surprise check incriminating materials were seized by the officials and a First Information Report was registered on 23.04.2019 in Crime No.4/AC/2019/CC-1 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 409 of IPC against the petitioner and 7 other individuals but according to the petitioner, there was no charge framed against him.
3. In the meantime, first respondent called for names for promotion to the post of Assistant Inspector General of Registration which is the next promotional post. The petitioner, apprehending that his name may not be included in the panel, had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31705 of 2022 with a prayer to direct the respondent therein i.e., the Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, to include petitioner's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Inspector General for the year 2022 to 2023. This Court, by order dated 28.11.2022, directed the respondent therein to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation. In the meanwhile, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, after investigation, filed a report in RC130/2019/REGN/CC-II dated 29.09.2021 recommending for dropping the three allegation arising out of the Joint Surprise Check held on 31.10.2018. The fourth respondent passed G.O (2D) No.85 dated 21.10.2022 dropping the three allegations as not substantiated. The third respondent had issued G.O (2D) No.84 requesting the Commissioner for Disciplinary proceedings Chennai, to conduct an enquiry into the seven allegations against the petitioner and other two accused Humayun (Record Clerk) and Ramamoorthi (Assistant). Thereafter, the petitioner had given a representation dated 10.12.2022 to the fourth respondent to withdraw the order in Letter (2D) No.84, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, Chennai but there was no response at all from the respondents. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33814 of 2022 to quash Letter (2D) No.84 dated 21.10.2022 issued by the fourth respondent. This Court by order dated 20.12.2022, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the first respondent to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 10.12.2022 and till the final order is passed, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai was directed to not to act upon the Government Letter (2D) No.84, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department.
4. The fourth respondent, by an order dated 18.05.2023, rejected the representation dated 10.12.2022 and the petitioner filed a review petition dated 25.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16746 of 2023 to quash the Letter (2D) No.84, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department a
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.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
The delay in serving the charge memo, the relevance of the criminal case's outcome on departmental proceedings, and the similarity of charges in the criminal and departmental proceedings are crucial ....
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.
Judicial review of disciplinary charge memos is limited; premature quashing is improper if charges are supported by evidence, requiring internal resolutions first.
The Court held that service of a charge memo, under applicable rules, must follow prescribed methods, and evading such protocols does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings against a public servant.
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.
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.