A specialized disciplinary tribunal lacks legal jurisdiction to frame charges against a public servant in the absence of corruption allegations; such disciplinary matters must strictly follow the procedural requirements mandated by general service regulations.

ORDER :

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

In this batch of writ petitions, a common issue would arise for consideration and as such, they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. It would be suffice if the facts of the first case are referred to and a conclusion is arrived at, as the fate of other writ petitions would be the same.

3.W.P(MD)No.27685 of 2024 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiori calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo formulated in TDP Case No. 11D of 2023 Na.Ka.A1/220/2023 dated 30.08.2024 and quash the same.

4.Originally, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act duly arraying the petitioner herein as the accused officer No.4 on certain allegations of corruption and accordingly, an investigation was carried out. On Completing the entire investigation, the Investigating Agency recommended to drop further action against the petitioner herein, who worked as the Block Development Officer(VP), Kollidam and now working as the Secretary, the Office of the District Panchayat, Thanjavur District. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government and accordingly, the Government issued G.O.(2D)No.136 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department dated 19.09.2023. It was thereafter, the Government appears to have addressed a letter to the second respondent herein on 19.09.2023 duly communicating the report of the Investigating Agency and requested the second respondent to conduct an enquiry into the substantiated main allegation against the accused officers. It was pursuant to the said letter dated 19.09.2023, the second respondent issued the impugned charge memo, however, without making any reference to the said letter dated 19.09.2023. It is aggrieved by the th said charge memo dated 30 August 2024, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Though several contentions have been raised before this Court, this Court is not inclined to go into all those aspects for the simple reason that the very authority of the second respondent to frame the charges against the petitioner is under challenge and in case, if the same is answered in favour of the petitioner, there is no need to examine all other aspects of the matter.

6. Heard Mr.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me through various provisions including the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and contended that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as ‘TDP’), with specific attention of this Court to Rule 8(a)(i) of the Rules and contended that TDP will have jurisdiction in cases of corruption and also in cases of corruption combined with other charges to frame charges and then, to conduct an enquiry into the said charges. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in all other cases, where the corruption charges are not involved, the procedures laid down under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules shall have to be followed. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on Class-(d) of Rule 8 of the Rules.

8. A perusal of the translated copy of the charge memo placed before this Court would indicate that there is nothing to say that any corruption charges are levelled against the petitioner herein. In the light of the