W.P. (MD) No.22954 to 22956 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P. (MD) No.22954 to 22956 of 2021

and

W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 19443 to 19446,19449 & 19451 of 2021

and 2875 to 2877 of 2022

K. Saravanan, ... Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.22954 of 2021

P.Natanasigamani ... Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.22955 of 2021

G.Iganacy ... Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.22956 of 2021

Vs.

1. The Director,

Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,

Chepauk,

Chennai

2. The District Adi Welfare Officer,

Tenkasi District,

Tenkasi,

3. T. Kamalapushpam,

Graduate Warden,

Government Adi Dravidar Welfare Girls Hostel,

Kulavanigarpuram,

Tirunelveli.

...R1 to R3 in all cases

4. V. Thiyagarajan,

The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,

Tirunelveli District,

Tirunelveli.

...R4 in W.P. (MD) Nos.22954 & 22956 of 2021

COMMON PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for

records pertaining to the impugned order of charge Memo in

Na.Ka.No.H3/9557/2020, dated 06.12.2021 on the file of the

Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal.

_________

Page 1 of 5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P. (MD) No.22954 to 22956 of 2021

For Petitioner

:

Mr.S. Louis,

For Respondents :

Mr.AK.Manikkam,

Special Government Pleader

for RR1 and 2

Mr.P.Guansekaran for R3

No-appearance for R4

C O M M O N O R D E R

The charge memo dated 06.12.2021 issued under Rule 17B of the

Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is under

challenge in the present Writ Petitions.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Warden in

Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners made

a submission that the charge memo was issued in the year 2021 based

on the complaint given by the third respondent about sexual

harassment caused to her. The learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioners relied on the report of the Tahsildar dated 18.09.2012

holding that there is no evidence to establish the allegation and

the Tahsildar recommended for transfer of the employees. Thereafter,

the District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer issued the proceedings

dated 24.01.2013 to the Commissioner stating that the allegations

are not established, and transferred the employee namely

Mr.G.Ignancy, who is the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.22956 of 2021.

4. This Court cannot conduct an enquiry into the allegations

raised between the parties.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader made a submission

based on the counter that the Tahsildar report itself is doubtful as

it was not communicated to all the concerned parties. Further, on

what basis the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry, without examining the

witnesses and complainant and other details, are also not provided.

Therefore, the report of the Tahsildar cannot be trusted upon nor be

taken into consideration for the purpose of proceeding with the

charges framed against the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent made

a submission that she has made a specific complaint and even after

the letter of the District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer in the year

2013, other complaints are also filed. The report of the Tahsildar

was not communicated to any of the Competent Authorities and

therefore, the same cannot form any basis for quashing the charge

memo.

_________

Page 2 of 5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P. (MD) No.22954 to 22956 of 2021

7. Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings.

All such disputes are to be adjudicated with reference to the

original documents and evidences, if necessary, through oral

evidence. High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry in respect of

allegations of bogus document