1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Writ Petition (MD) No.7419 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 V.Subramanian S/o.Veeranan 6/21 Srinivasa Street Balaji Nagar Thirupparamkundram Madurai 625 005 ... Petitioner vs. The Principal District Judge Madurai. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned memorandum dated 08.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner .. Mr.GR.Swaminathan For Respondent .. Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI, J.) Against the writ petitioner, who was working as a Head Clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, certain charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and after the receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report, the impugned show cause notice has been given by the respondent and the show cause notice is challenged on the ground that even before giving the final decision in the show cause notice itself, the respondent being the disciplinary authority has foreclosed the issue by making its mind to accept the Enquiry Officer's report. Therefore, it is vitiated by the violation of principles of natural justice. 2. On a reference to the impugned order, in paragraph No.2, it is stated as follows: “2.On a careful consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer aforesaid, the undersigned agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in so far as it relates to the charge and for the reasons stated in the Enquiry Report in which the Inquiry Officer has held as proved.” 3. It is clear that the respondent being the disciplinary authority while giving the show cause notice has himself categorically stated that he has agreed with the Enquiry Officer's report. If the disciplinary authority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 has agreed with the Enquiry Officer's report, there is no purpose of giving show cause notice asking the delinquent to give his reply. 4. In such view of the matter, We are of the view that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, in the sense that, the disciplinary authority has foreclosed the issue. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the show cause notice issued by the respondent is set aside, however, with liberty to the Principal District Judge, Madurai, to give fresh show cause notice in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI Act) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: The Principal District Judge Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No.21831 RR ORDER MADE IN WP(MD) No.7419 of 2011 06.07.2011 TR : 25.07.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/