1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY WP(MD)No.4835 of 2011 and MP.No.1 of 2011 H.Retnapandian, :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Enquiry Officer/Hon'ble Subordinate Judge, Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 2.N.R.Gopalakrishnan, Sarishtadar, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukottai District. :Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in R.No.1780/2010, dated 21.02.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as the same being capricious, arbitrary and illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent 1 : Mr.D.Sivaraman ORDER [Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.02.2011. 2.The case of the petitioner is that at present he is working as Sarishtadar in Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated as against the second respondent herein and one S.Eliza. In the enquiry conducted, basing on the depositions of the said delinquent officers, certain irregularities were pointed out as against the petitioner. Basing on this, the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, has directed the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. In pursuance of the same, the Enquiry Officer had conducted an enquiry and submitted his report stating that disciplinary proceeding has to be initiated as against the petitioner also. The said opinion expressed by the Enquiry Officer is under challenge in the Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, alone is the competent authority to frame charges. However, the impugned order has been passed by the Enquiry Officer, who is in the cadre of Subordinate Judge. Based on the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. 4.As far as the said stand is concerned, what is under challenge is only the opinion expressed by the Enquiry Officer, who had conducted enquiry pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. In the enquiry, certain irregularities were pointed out as against the petitioner. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has expressed his opinion that the disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated as against the petitioner also. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Enquiry Officer has expressed his opinion that separate charges have to be framed as against the petitioner for the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him and basing on the charges to be framed as against the petitioner, further action has to be taken by the competent authority. Consequently, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction will not hold good. Apart from this, though a stand is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a charge memo has been issued by the Enquiry Officer, no such charge memo is produced before this Court. 5.In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Enquiry Officer / Subordinate Judge, Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. +1CC to Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate. SR.No.15620. +1CC to Mr.D.Sivaraman, Advocate. SR.No.16049. NB RP/09.06.2011/2P/4C. ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.4835 of 2011 28.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/