Dismissed

Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP(MD)/9913/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a third-party petitioner seeking a mandatory direction under Article 226 to initiate departmental action against police officers. The court held that disciplinary proceedings are matters between the employer and employee, and third parties lack locus standi to intervene.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 directing initiation of departmental action was dismissed with no costs.

Ganesan Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

Ganesan

... Petitioner

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Director General of Police, O/o.Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶12

3.The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai-16.

¶13

4.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

5.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

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

¶16

1/15

¶17

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶18

6.Mr.S.Essaki

¶19

7.Mr.S.Anandakumar 8.Mr.N.Thirupathi 9.Mr.A.Perumal

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein to initiate necessary departmental action against the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 for breach of duty and misconduct under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 19.03.2019.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh For R1 to R5 : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.J.Jeevin

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner, who is a Village Administrative Officer

¶25

has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein, to initiate necessary departmental action as against the respondents 6 to 9, for breach of duty and misconduct under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by considering his representation, dated 19.03.2019.

¶26

2/15

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶29

2 .In identical circumstances, this Court had dealt with

¶30

the issue as to the rights of the third parties to seek for departmental action against a Government employee, wherein, it has been held that the decision to initiate such departmental proceedings lies within the scope and authority of the concerned disciplinary authority and it is not for the third parties to seek to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of directing the authorities to initiate such action. Relying upon a few of such decisions, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others, passed in W.P.(MD).No.8871 of 2018, dated 26.04.2018 , has upheld this ratio in the following manner:

¶31

'' 8. The learned senior counsel, in response would submit that, the law is well settled in this regard as a third party cannot stand in the way in between the employee and the employer in matters of service disputes, especially in

¶32

3/15

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶35

the context of disciplinary proceedings.

¶36

9. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313 . The learned senior counsel has relied upon paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and the same which reads as under:

¶37

“8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus standi" has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest Litigation where it has been said that Public Interest Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court. (See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla and Bangalore Medical . Trust v. B.S. Muddappa

¶38

9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In

¶39

4/15

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶42

respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

¶43

10. In view of the above, it is not open to the

¶44

5/15

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶47

petitioner to challenge the Order of the High Court by which the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr. U.N. Biswas was quashed. The permission to file the special leave petition is, therefore, refused.”

¶48

10. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon the decision of the learned Judge of this Court in the matter of K.Padma vs., Vigilance Cell, Madras and Others reported in (2007) 3 MLJ 639 , where the learned senior counsel relied upon the following passages:

¶49

“ The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the District Munsif, Namakkal, while discharging his judicial function, committed irregularities, which made the petitioner to make a complaint to the first respondent, the Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras. The Vigilance Cell sent recommendations on the same to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal to enquire into the complaint. Also, the proceeding before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 20.12.2004 which is the Enquiry Report, is filed in the typed set of papers.

¶50

6/15

¶51

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

¶52

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶53

2. The entire exercise by the petitioner is highly misconceived. When a complaint against a Judicial Officer is made, it can be enquired into under the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Any further proceedings on which action to be taken will be decided by him either through the Committees appointed by him or by the Full Court. The petitioner being the complainant has no further role to play in this matter. The Supreme Court, vide decision Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3469 : 2000 (9) SCC 313 held that once a complaint is given against a judicial officer his role ends there. The relevant passage found in paragraphs 9 and 10 are as follows:

¶54

In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for misconduct on the part of the

¶55

7/15

¶56

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

¶57

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶58

employee. This action is taken after a domestic inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

¶59

10. In view of the above, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the High Court by which the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr. U.N. Biswas was quashed. The permission to file the special leave petition is, therefore, refused.

¶60

3. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and clearly not maintainable. Hence the writ petition is

¶61

8/15

¶62

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

¶63

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶64

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2087 are closed.”

¶65

11. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the recent decision of the learned Judge made in V.Vijayalakshmi vs., State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and others in W.P.(MD) No.939 of 2018 dated 17.01.2018, where the learned Judge has taken the decision that, the disciplinary action against the officials concerned lies entirely with the employer and it is not for the writ petitioner, who is a private person to ask for a Writ of Mandamus in this regard. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶66

“4. The specific complaint of the writ petitioner is that for a period of suspension, that is, from 04.08.2015 to 10.08.2017, even though her salary has been disbursed by the Government, it was not credited to her account and that the same was misappropriated. The writ petitioner, therefore lodged a representation in this regard, for taking appropriate action against the persons who allegedly misappropriated the salary payable to her. Since no action was taken, the present writ

¶67

9/15

¶68

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

¶69

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶70

petition has been filed for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate criminal and disciplinary action against the erring officials.

¶71

5.This Court is of the view that the decision to take disciplinary action against the officials concerned, lies entirely with the employer and it is not for the writ petitioner to ask for issuance of Writ of Mandamus in this regard. The writ petitioner has no locus standi in the matter.”

¶72

.......14. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus, the law in this regard is well settled, as a third party, not connected with any service dispute cannot maintain the Writ Petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the service side seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against any employee or officials.

¶73

15. The theory of personal injury can very well be pressed into the service in this case.

¶74

16. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party and though he has claimed to be the social worker, he cannot

¶75

10/15

¶76

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

¶77

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶78

claim any personal injury of the case of the alleged delayed action of disciplinary proceedings against the official respondent against the private respondent.

¶79

17. Once the third party cease to be the person, without any personal injury, he cannot maintain the Writ Petiiton as an adversary Writ Petition.

¶80

18. If the petitioner files any adversary writ petition on the service side, because he is a third party, the next question would be naturally raised is that, whether he can file such petitions by way of Public Interest Litigations(PIL).

¶81

19. In this regard, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the very same petitioner already approached this Court by filing a PIL, where the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.6734 of 2007 in Sudalaikannu Vs., the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and others dated 23.12.2008 made the following observations which can usefully be pressed into service herein.

¶82

“ It is seen that the petitioner belongs to a particular political party and he also functioned

¶83

11/15

¶84

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

¶85

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶86

as a Councilor of the Municipal Corporation. Further, the petition has been filed on frivolous reasons after knowing fully well that action is being taken against respondents-4 to 7. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that vexatious applications in the guise of public interest litigations should not be entertained. Since the present petition is one of such kind, we hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to file it and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

¶87

3.The facts involved in the aforesaid decision would be applicable to the facts of the present case also. More over, by following the aforesaid ratio, this Court has already decided the similar issue in WP(MD) No.17262 of 2022, dated 03.08.2022. Though the petitioner claims that the respondents 6 to 9, who are the police personnel have criminally conspired with the wind mill owners at Surandai, Tirunelveli and have closed the case in Crime No.69 of 2006, which was registered on the complaint of the petitioner herein, with regard to the encroachment of Odai

¶88

12/15

¶89

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

¶90

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019

¶91

Poramboke and Oorani, the petitioner may not have any legal right as to seek for departmental action against the respondents 6 to 8 herein and at the most, he can address the issue before the concerned authority. However, seeking for a direction from this Court to initiate such departmental proceedings against the respondents 6 to 9 is impermissible, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. As such, this Court do not find any merits in the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition.

¶92

4.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶93

03.12.2024

¶94

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes vrn

¶95

13/15

¶96

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

¶97

W.P(MD)No.9913 of 2019