1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8048 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 C.Kailasam ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Revenue Officer Pudukkottai District 2. The District Collector Pudukkottai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of 1st respondent relating his proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/1542/2011 dated 07.02.2011 under rule 17(b) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules) and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Tahsildar. *** For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader O R D E R Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules), dated 07.02.2011, alleging that the petitioner has committed certain lapses. The charges relate to the year 2008 and it is settled that did act even service in the said station during the relevant period. The supporting affidavit filed in this Writ Petition is nothing to an explanation, to the charge memorandum. 2. According to the petitioner, he joined duty as Head Quarters Thasildar only on 09.01.2010, which later than the alleged lapse and therefore, the initiation of proceedings itself is arbitrary, unwarranted and liable to be set aside. 3. Though the petitioner has contended at paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit that he has made oral statement to the first respondent on 27.05.2011, explaining that he is in no way concerned with the charges, Mr.N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that no explanation has been submitted to the District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai. 4. It is well settled that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is useful to extract few judgments of the Supreme Court, on the aspect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the power of the Courts to interfere with disciplinary proceedings, at the threshold. 5. In Union of India v. Upendra Singh reported in 1994 (3) SCC 357, the Central Administrative Tribunal which examined the correctness of the charges against the respondent therein, on the basis of the material produced by him and quashed the same. The Union of India preferred an appeal. The Supreme Court, after considering the decisions in T.C.Basappa v. T.Nagappa reported in AIR 1954 SC 440, which was followed in Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1621 and V.D.Trivedi v. Union of India reported in 1993 (2) SCC 55, at Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the judgment in Upendra Singh's case, held as follows: "In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to Court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. 6. In Union of India v. K.K.Dhawan reported in 1993 (2) SCC 56, it was contended by the delinquent therein that his conduct cannot be the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings, as it was not in the course of discharge of the duties as a servant of the Government. The Supreme Court, following the ratio decidenti in S.Govinda Menon v. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1274, repelled such contention and at Paragraph 28, held that disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases, though the instances are not exhaustive, "i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of the government servant; iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. It is useful to extract the ratio decidenti in S.Govinda Menon v. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1274, and it reads as follows: "In our opinion, it is not necessary that a member of the Service should have committed the alleged act or omission in the course of discharge of his duties as a servant of the Government in order that it may form the subject-matter of disciplinary proceedings. In other words, if the act or omission is such as to reflect on the reputation of the officer for his integrity or good faith or devotion to duty, there is no reason why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him for that act or omission even though the act or omission relates to an activity in regard to which there is no actual master and servant relationship. To put it differently, the test is not whether the act or omission was committed by the appellant in the course of the discharge of his duties as servant of the Government The test is whether the act or omission has some reasonable connection with nature and condition of his service or whether the act or omission has cast any reflection upon the reputation of the member of the Service for integrity or devotion to duty as a public servant. We are of the opinion that even if the appellant was not subject to the administrative control of the Government when he was functioning as Commissioner under the Act and was not the servant of the Government subject to its orders at the relevant time, his act or omission as Commissioner could form the subject-matter of disciplinary proceedings provided the act or omission would reflect upon his reputation for integrity or devotion to duty as a member of the service." In this context reference may be made to the following observations of Lopes, L.J. in Pearce v. Foster (1866) 17 QBD 536, p. 542. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duty in the service, it is misconduct which justifies immediate dismissal. That misconduct, according to my view, need not be misconduct in the carrying on of the service of the business. It is sufficient if it is conduct which is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests or to the reputation of the master, and the master will be justified, not only if he discovers it at the time, but also if he discovers it afterwards, in dismissing that servant. (emphasis supplied) 8. In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, the respondent therein was issued with a charge memo for availing reservation against the post earmarked for ST, though he did not belong to the said category. Instead of submitting a reply to the charge memo, he preferred Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to submit the explanation to the charge memo and on such reply, the disciplinary authority was directed to consider his name. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 stead of filing the reply, the respondent therein filed a Writ Petition, which was allowed. Testing the correctness of the order of the Andra Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, held as follows: "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 33], Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. [AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa and Ors. v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and Ors. [2001 (10) SCC 639], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. [AIR 1987 SC 943] etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show- cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show- cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." (emphasis supplied) 9. This Court exercising an ex-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot simply be converted into the Court of enquiry. Though the petitioner has claimed that he had not worked in the station and joined only the same on 01.01.2010, he should have been submitted an explanation to the charge without submitting an explanation, he cannot seek for indulgence from this Court, to quash the charge. The decision in Kunisetty Satyanarayana squarely applies to the facts of this case. 10. In view of the above decisions and having regard to the admitted case that the petitioner has not even submitted an explanation, to the concerned, the relief of certiorari, cannot be granted. 11. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 12. The dismissal of the Writ Petition will not foreclose the right of the petitioner to submit an explanation to prove that he had joined duty only on 09.01.2010 and that he was not responsible for the lapses alleged. On receipt of the explanation, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Revenue Officer Pudukkottai District 2. The District Collector Pudukkottai District +1cc to Mr.N.Balakrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.23793 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.23924 vsg GH : 28.07.2011 : 5p/5c W.P.(MD).No.8048 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 20.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/