Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J
A. Senthur Pandian S/o M. Ayeraramu – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings – Respondent
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 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 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.
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
