The Madras High Court quashed a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding against a petitioner, holding that there was no material evidence proving he gave conflicting opinions regarding a community certificate, rendering the charges baseless.
Charge memo set aside; Writ Petition allowed; No costs; Connected M.P. closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P. 12679 of 2014 and M.P. 1 of 2014
Dr.C.Maheswaran ... Petitioner Versus 1. Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2. Assistant Director (Administration), Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Museums,Egmore Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to the proceedings dated 20.03.2014 bearing reference No.Na.Ka.No. PaMe/A2/322/2014 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjust and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay all benefits to the petitioner for the services he rendered from 1983.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s.Row and Reddy For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo issued to the petitioner.
Community and not belongs to Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) Community. Thereafter, the said Lalitha Bharani, said to have filed a Writ Petition and the Division Bench of this Court has remanded back the matter to the State Level Scrutiny committee for fresh consideration. Hence, the present disciplinary proceedings was initiated as if the petitioner has given two different opinions, that the first opinion, he has opined that Lalitha Bharani belongs to Most Backward community, and thereafter, during the enquiry by Deputy Superintendent of Police, he has stated that Lalitha Bharani belongs to Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) community. Therefore, the charge memo has been issued against the petitioner, and now challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
Scheduled Tribes community. But, absolutely, there is no materials available on record to show that the petitioner has given a opinion that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribes community. It is only a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein he has given a opinion based on field enquiry conducted by him that she belongs to Scheduled Tribes community, for which, the petitioner is not liable to be punished. Absolutely, there is no basis for framing the charges. Hence, the charge memo is liable to be set aside.
ultimately rejected the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and come to a conclusion that Lalitha Bharani, belongs to Kurumba community (Most Backward community) and not the Kurumans community, (Scheduled Tribes community).
From the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it could be seen that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has come to a conclusion that the community certificate issued to the said Lalitha Bharani is genuine based on the statement of the petitioner, Lalitha Bharani's mother and other doucments. But, the report did not say that the petitioner has given a conclusive opinion that Lalitha Bharani belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. From the report filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, it is not known what is the actual statement given by the petitioner. Apart from that, it is also stated that the
statement given by the petitioner was also not recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the above circumstances, in absence of any materials to show that the petitioner has given a opinion before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that Lalitha Bharani belongs Scheduled Tribes community, it cannot be said that the petitioner has given two different opinion. Apart from that, the Deputy Superintendent of Police report is not only based on the statement of the petitioner, but the Deputy Superintendent of Police has collected various documents and also recorded statements of so many persons, and finally, come to a conclusion that she belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. Hence, it cannot be concluded that only based on the petitioner's opinion alone, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has come to a conclusion that she belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. In the said circumstances, there is no materials available to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner and the charge memo has been issued without any basis. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1.The Director,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Chepauk,Chennai-600 005.
W.P. 12679 of 2014 and M.P. 1 of 2014
A.SK(12/03/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is material evidence to prove the petitioner gave two different opinions on community status warranting disciplinary charges.
Whether the charge memo issued against the petitioner is liable to be quashed for lack of basis.
Whether the charge memo without factual substantiation violates principles of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. CommissionerReferred¶11
Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, 1994 (6) SCC 241 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. C. Maheswaran
Director, Tribal Welfare Department
Assistant Director (Administration), Government Museum
Government of Tamil Nadu
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. Bharathidasan
Parties & counsel
