1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.9460 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (E1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Guindy, Chennai. ... Respondents 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 Petitioner : M/s. Pala Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R The impugned charge memorandum in Letter No.24496/E1/2006- 14, dated 28.08.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (E1) Department, Chennai, has been challenged on three grounds: (i) that as per Rule 36(5) (a) (aa) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and circular dated 26.11.2001 of Assistant Director (Mines), Department of Geology and Mining, only the Joint Director (Geology and Mining), Deputy Director (Geology and Mining), Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), Assistant Geologist, Special Tahsildar (Mines), Special Deputy Tahsildar (Mines) and Special Revenue Inspector (Mines), have full control of mining and transportation of minerals and that they are also instructed to inspect and submit a detailed report regarding the boundary maintenance, mining activities, pit head maintenance and other relevant details for appropriate action. If there is any illicit mining, the petitioner has to intimate the same to the Office of the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining) and the petitioner cannot be held responsible, for illicit quarrying in Survey No.91 of 2003 and the loss caused to the Government to the tune of Rs.6,88,848/-. According to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner, he is only an Assistant not empowered to inspect and take appropriate action and hence, the formulation of the charge memo itself is without application of mind; (ii)that there is delay in initiating proceedings for an alleged occurrence which took place in the year 2005. (iii)It is also the submission of the petitioner that since he has already been transferred and relieved from the Office of the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), Tirunelveli on 31.07.2004, he cannot take any action on the complaint dated 06.12.2005, preferred by one Tmt.T.Regina Mary, Panchayat President, Nakklamuthanpatti. For the above said reasons, the petitioner has prayed for interference with the impugned charge memo. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The charges levelled against the petitioner are that (a)while the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), he has allowed illicit quarrying in S.No.90 of Nakklamuthanpatti Village and caused revenue loss to the Government to the tune of RS.6,88,848/-. (b)that the petitioner did not take any action on the complaint of one T.Regina Mary, Panchayat President, Nakklamuthanpatti, dated 06.12.2005 and thus, failed to discharge his duties. 4. Though the petitioner has contended that initiation of departmental proceedings are liable to be set aside for the above said grounds, this Court is not inclined to consider the said contentions, for the reason that the allegations against the petitioner have to be proved in the enquiry, ordered, and they are matters of evidence and this court cannot be converted into an enquiry officer, to adjudicate the same, on mere averments, made in the supporting affidavit. The same has to be gone into only in the enquiry. On the basis of the Office Order dated 21.11.2001 of the Assistant Director (Mines), Department of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli, the petitioner can always submit an explanation to the charge and explain to the first respondent. 5. Courts have consistently held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a delinquent employee cannot be quashed at the threshold. 6. Useful reference can be made to the following decision: 29. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 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) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 7. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court stated supra, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned charge memo, particularly, when there is a serious allegation of revenue loss to the Government to the tune of RS.6,88,848/-. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (E1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Guindy, Chennai. akv rl/3c – 21.9.2011 W.P.(MD)No.9460 of 2011 23.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/