Disposed

R.Bagyalakshmi, v. The Principal District Judge/

Madras HC5 Mar 2024WP/3538/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Madras dismissed a writ petition filed to quash a show cause notice issued against a Clerk for alleged lapses. The Court held that adjudication of merits belongs to the departmental authority, as no mala fides were established.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit explanation to allegations within the departmental proceedings. Disciplinary Authority to pass final orders within twelve weeks.

R.Bagyalakshmi, Vs The Principal District Judge/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.No.3538 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.4343 of 2018

R.Bagyalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal District Judge/ Disciplinary Authority, Namakkal – 637 001.

¶12

2.The Subordinate Judge/ Enquiry Officer, Tiruchengode – 637 211. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to ROC.No.1670/A/2016 dated 15.02.2016 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same.

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah Senior Counsel for Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi For Respondents : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

(Order of this Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶20

The show cause notice issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu

¶21

Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in proceeding dated 15.02.2016 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

¶22

The petitioner was working as Grade-1 Bench Clerk in the Judicial Service. Certain lapses and dereliction of duties were identified and a

¶23

show cause notice was issued by the learned Principal District Judge/Disciplinary Authority, Namakkal in proceedings dated 15.02.2016. The petitioner instead of submitting explanation to the allegations, he has chosen to file the present writ petition on merits.

¶24

Adjudication of merits and its scope in a departmental disciplinary proceedings by the High Court in the writ proceedings are

¶25

Page No.2 of 6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶28

limited. All such disputed allegations are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences available on record. Under Rule 17 (a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules summary proceedings are to be conducted. On receipt of explanation from the Delinquent employee, the Disciplinary Authority has to consider the issues and pass final orders.

¶29

3.1 In the present case, the petitioner has not established that the impugned show cause notice suffers from the allegations of mala fides or issued by an incompetent Authority. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the show cause notice issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

¶30

3.2 The 1^st respondent/Disciplinary Authority, Namakkal is directed to complete the procedures in all respects and pass final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

Page No.3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶34

With these directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶35

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

[S.M.S.J.] [K.R.S.J.] 05.03.2024

¶37

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda

¶38

¶39

1.The Principal District Judge/ Disciplinary Authority, Namakkal – 637 001.

¶40

2.The Subordinate Judge/ Enquiry Officer, Tiruchengode – 637 211.

¶41

Page No.4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶44

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.

¶45

veda

¶46

Order in W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶47

05.03.2024

¶48

Page No.5 of 6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.3538 of 2018

¶51

Page No.6 of 6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Bagyalakshmi, v. The Principal District Judge/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Bagyalakshmi, v. The Principal District Judge/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Kulamani Vs the Registrar General

P.Elangovan Vs the Registrar General

P.Ponnusamy Vs The Registrar General

K.Janaki Vs the Principal District Judge

R.Natesan Vs The Principal District Judge

R. Venkatesan Vs Selvakumar and 2 others