The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a charge memorandum. The Court held that such petitions require exceptional circumstances (lack of jurisdiction, incompetence, or malafides) and that officers must defend themselves during inquiry.
Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed. No order regarding costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No. 15204 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.16478 & 20374 of 2017
C.Lawrence ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Engineer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
3. The Superintendent Engineer (Mechanical)
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memorandum under Section 10(b) of the Chennai Corporation Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1970 in G.D.Na.Ka.No.E13/ 16396/2017 dated 28.05.2017 issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same
2
and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to forthwith fix the Pay Scale for the petitioner in the promoted Post of Executive Engineer with effect from 14.07.2017 and pay the petitioner all the arrears payable to him from the said date.
For Petitioner : Mr. AL.Gandhimathi
For Respondents : Mr. Karthick Ashok
O R D E R
Challenging the charge memorandum issued by the first
respondent in proceedings dated 28 th May 2017, the present writ
petition is filed.
2. The writ petitioner is holding the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer and in respect of certain allegation the charge
memorandum was issued in proceedings dated 28 th May 2017. The
details of the charges are extracted hereunder :-
“Fw;wr;rhl;L : 1 : - ngUefu nrd;id khefuhl;rp. kz;lyk; - 5> gFjp-
12 kw;Wk; gFjp-13f;Fl;gl;l gy;NtW njUf;fspy; fl;bl ,bgLfis mfw;wp nfhLq;ifa+h; Fg;ig nfhl;Lk; tshfj;jpy; nfhz;L nrd;W nfhl;Lk; gzpf;fhf ,-nld;lh; Nfhuhky; FWfpa fhy xg;ge;jq;fs; (limited Tender) Nfhug;gl;L> mjd; thapyhf ngwg;gl;l
3
xg;ge;jq;fspy; jpUthsh;.md;id vh;j; %th;;]; kw;Wk; jpUthsh;.,uhzp yh[p];bf; %th;;]; Mfpa ,U epWtdq;fspd; xg;ge;j Nfl;G ngah; tptuj;jhspy; xNu njhiyNgrp kw;Wk; ifg;Ngrp vz;fs; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sij Kiwahf Ma;T nra;J fz;lwpahkYk; xNu egNu ,U epWtdq;fspd; ngahpy; xg;gk; NfhhpAs;sjpdi MuhahkYk;> Xg;ge;j tpjpfis kPwp> jpUthsh;.,uhzp yh[];bf; epWtdj;jpw;F gzp Miz toq;fg;gl Ntz;Lnkd;w xNu Nehf;fj;NjhL nray;gl;L gzp Miz toq;fpaJ.
Fw;wr;rhl;L – 2 : - ngUefu nrd;id khefuhl;rp> kz;lyk; - 5> gFjp12 kw;Wk; gFjp – 13f;Fl;gl;l gy;NtW njUf;fspy; fl;bl ,bghLfis mfw;wp nfhLq;ifa+h; Fg;ig nfhl;Lk; tshfj;jpy; nfhz;L nrd;W nfhl;Lk; gzpf;fhf> ngwg;gl;l tpiyGs;spfspy;> jpUthsh;.,uhzp yh[];bf; epWtdj;jhUf;;F gzp Miz toq;fp> cld;gbf;iff;fhf Nfhg;G rkh;g;gpf;fg;gLk; jUzj;jpy; jpUthsh;.md;id vh;j; %th;;]; kw;Wk; jpUthsh;.,uhzp yh[p];bf; %th;;]; Mfpa ,U epWtdq;fspd; njhiyNgrp kw;Wk; ,ju tptuq;fis ruptu Ma;T nra;ahky; xg;ge;jjhuUf;F xg;ge;j mspj;J cld;gbf;iff;F Nfhg;G rkh;gpj;jJ vd;gJ Kiwahf xg;ge;j tpjpfis gpd;gw;whky;> jpUthsh;.,uhzp yh[p];bf; %th;;]; epWtdj;jpw;Nf gzp Miz toq;fg;gl Ntz;Lk; vd;w xNu vz;zj;NjhL nray;gl;lJ.
Fw;wr;rhl;L : 3 : - tpopg;G Fokj;jpd; %yk; xg;ge;jf; Nfhg;G ngah; tptuj;jhspy; ,U epWtdq;fspd; xNu njhiyNgrp kw;Wk; ifg;Ngrp vz;fs; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ Fwpj;J tpsf;fk; Nfhug;gl;l gpwNf Nkw;fz;l rk;ke;jg;gl;l epWtdq;fsplkpUe;J nraw;nghwpahsh;> kz;lyk; - 5 mth;fs; %ykhf fbjk;
4
mDg;gg;gl;L tpsf;fk; Nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ> vd;gJ jq;fSila gzpapd; kPjhd fhyjhkj;jpidAk;. mf;fiwapd;ikAk; kw;Wk; jpUthsh;.,uhzp yh[p];bf; %th;;]; epWtdj;Njhlhd jq;fs; neUf;fj;jpidAk; vLj;J fhl;LfpwJ.
Fw;wrrhl;L : 4 :- jq;fSila gzpia ftdj;Jld; nra;ahjjhy; ngUefu nrd;id khefuhl;rp gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1983. tpjp. 20I kPwpAs;sJ.
5
this point of time in view of the fact that the allegation set out in the charge memo has to be inquired into and a logical conclusion has to be
arrived. On reaching of the conclusion that there are certain irregularities in awarding tender in favour of certain private companies and such irregularities has to be looked into by putting all the officials concerned in the process of enquiry. The writ petitioner as well as the respondent are accountable to the public as they are dealing with the public money.
6
has never dealt with the file at all. Thus, this Court is unable to agree with the submissions made in this regard. Once, the charges are framed, it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation /objections and participate in the process of enquiry and prove his innocence. A person against whom such serious charges are set out, he shall not be allowed to escape from the clutches of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings.
challenging the charge memo can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner. Any disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant has to reach its logical conclusion and the employees are bound to face the disciplinary proceedings and prove their innocence during the course of enquiry. Once a charge memo is issued against an employee, the employees are bound to submit their explanation/ objections under the rules and defend the enquiry.
jurisdiction or incompetency or on the ground of malafides. Even in the
7
case of raising the plea of malafides, the said person has to be impleaded as a party in his personal capacity. In the absence of these grounds, no writ can be entertained challenging the charge memo. This Court cannot adjudicate the merits and demerits of the charges at this stage and it is for the writ petitioner to defend his case and prove his innocence before the enquiry to be conducted by the disciplinary
authority. 11. Such being the view taken in this regard, no further adjudication on merits is to be undertaken in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. 07.08.2017 maya Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-speaking order
8
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J
maya
To
07.08.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be entertained to challenge a charge memorandum without establishing exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction, incompetence, or malafides.
Whether a public servant is bound to face disciplinary proceedings and prove innocence before challenging the framing of charge.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate the merits of charges framed against a public servant at the stage of a writ petition.
C.Lawrence
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
The Principal Chief Engineer, Corporation of Chennai
The Superintendent Engineer (Mechanical), Corporation of Chennai
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
