Petitioner challenged a charge memo and sought reinstatement, citing false allegations. The High Court held a writ does not lie against a charge sheet at an initial stage and did not find malafide, dismissing the petition. The officer must submit an explanation per prior Supreme Court guidance.
None. Petitioner directed to submit explanation to disciplinary authority.
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 : 25.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.6893 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.6939 of 2022
S.Sathya ...Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the charge memo dated 08.10.2021 made in Na.Ka.No.10053/2020/C23 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sivanesan For R1 : Ms.R.L.Karthika Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.L.P.Maurya
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
factual disputes. This Court need not be gone into the disputed facts. However, without submitting her explanation to the charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the charge memo unless there is a malafide or inordinate delay in framing the charges. The petitioner can submit her explanation in response to the charge memo and place all the grounds raised by her in this writ petition before the concerned authority.
6.At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 565, wherein it is held as follows:
"8. The law does not permit quashing of chargesheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the chargesheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case, the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance.
Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ leis when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court.
Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the decision cited supra, I find no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
uma
To
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
+1cc to Mr.M.Baskaran, Advocate, S.R.No.20462
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.20650
W.P.No.6893 of 2022 and W.M.P No.6939 of 2022
SR(CO) SU(11/05/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a high court can quash a charge memo in disciplinary proceedings at the initial stage without an officer submitting an explanation.
Whether a writ petition challenging the filing of charges before a final order imposing punishment can be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra MirdhaExplained¶20
(2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 565
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Sathya
Director, Office of the Director of Municipal Administration
Commissioner, Kulithalai Municipality
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
