1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN W.A.(MD)No.996 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.Manikandan .. Appellant vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (E1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Guindy, Chennai. .. Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 23.8.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.9460 of 2011. W.P.(MD)No.9460 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2011. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to impugned charge memo made in Letter No.24496/E1/2006-14, dated 28.08.2010 passed by the first respondent and quash the same. For appellant : Mr.Pala Ramasamy For respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.Govt.Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) The appellant in this case was an Assistant in the respondents' department. He was served with a Charge Memo dated 23.8.2011 wherein two charges were framed. One of the charges relates to allowing illicit quarrying in a particular village causing loss to the Government. The other one is that the petitioner did not take action on the complaint made by the Panchayat President said to have given on 6.12.2005. 2. The appellant challenged the Charge Memo on the ground that the Charge Memo proceedings has been initiated after a long period of time. The second charge is not maintainable inasmuch as the appellant did not serve in the said place during the relevant time, as he was transferred on or after 31.7.2004. In other words, appellant worked in the said place https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 only between 8.6.2000 and 31.7.2004 and during the period of complaint (i.e.) December, 2005, he was nowhere in the picture. Learned Single Judge took the view that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant/petitioner cannot be quashed at the threshold. Based on the Apex Court's decision in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, the learned Single Judge declined to quash the Charge Memo and dismissed the Writ Petition and hence the appeal. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the guidelines, the appellant is not the person concerned with controlling of illicit quarrying and it is the responsibility of the superior officer. With regard to the second charge, the appellant's plea is that he was not available in the said office during the relevant point of time. 4. The issues raised by the appellant are factual issues which can be addressed by the appellant before the competent authority by submitting a reply in response to the Charge Memo and the appellant's grievance will be duly considered by the authority dealing with the Charge Memo Proceedings on merits. 5. The appellant is entitled to set out all the issues before the competent authority and the authority concerned should consider the same in the light of the guidelines as pointed out and the factual aspects of the case which have been highlighted by the appellant. This Court is not inclined to go into factual issues raised by the appellant at the threshold and interfere with departmental proceedings. There is no plea of arbitrariness or lack of jurisdiction. 6. We find no just or reasonable cause to interfere with the Charge Memo at this stage. No prejudice would be caused, if the appellant appears before the authority and explains his stand as stated above. 7. For all the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to go into the Charge Memo at this stage. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is disposed of giving liberty as above. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) / True copy / Sub Assistant Registrar asvm/ts To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (E1) Department,Secretariat,Chennai. 2.The Commissioner,Geology and Mining Department,Guindy, Chennai. 1cc to Spl.Government Pleader SR No.34723 sb 02/11/2011 2p 4cc W.A.(MD)No.996 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/