IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.07.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.9366 of 2003 & W.P.M.P.No.11933 of 2003 M.Kuruvammal ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Vice-Chancellor Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University) Gandhigram, Dindigul 624 302. 2. The Registrar Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University) Gandhigram, Dindigul 624 302. ... Respondents Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent herein relating to the proceedings in GRI/legal/2002-2003/4991 dated 10.3.2003 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs. A.L.Gandhimathi For Respondents : Mr.R.Nandakumar and Mr.S.Gopala Ratnam for R2 O R D E R The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.3.2003. 2. The petitioner was a the Lecturer in the respondent Institute and during November 1992 one Dr.Pitchai was sought to be given promotion as Lecturer Senior Grade, with effect from 1.1.1986, by taking into account the services rendered by him in the State Reserve Centre, Madras between 1.7.1080 and 31.7.1984. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11913 of 1993 before this Court to quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said proceedings. The Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 19.6.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed W.A.No.325 of 2001 and notice was ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 6.2.2001. While the mater stood at that stage, the respondents sought to confer the post of Reader on Dr.Pitchai and issued a letter dated 23.9.2002, requesting him to send eight copies of his bio-data, self appraisal report and other materials for consideration of his candidature for promotion. Since this move of the respondents was touching upon the very issue which was pending in W.A.No.325 of 2001, the petitioner filed W.A.M.P.No.5247 of 2002 to restrain the respondents from promoting Dr.Pitchai as Reader and along with the affidavit, the petitioner produced the copy of the Syndicate Resolution dated 14.8.2002 and the letter dated 23.09.2002 addressed to Dr.Pitchai, in a typed set of papers. The Hon'ble Division Bench by an order dated 11.10.2002, directed that if any promotion is given, the same shall not be given effect to until further orders. 3. At that stage, the petitioner received a memo dated 13.1.2003, for production of the letter dated 23.9.2002 addressed to Dr.Pitchai and called upon the petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for possession of unauthorised document. The petitioner submitted a reply on 20.1.2003 stating that as the memo dated 13.1.2003 amounts to interference with administration of justice and contempt of Court. The petitioner has also stated that she is being threatened for approaching the Court of law. It was also brought to the notice of the respondents that when an earlier order was passed on 1.10.1994 withholding the petitioner's increment for one year, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2152 of 2002 in W.A.No.1151 of 2002, granted stay of such proceedings. 4. Not satisfied with the reply, the impugned charge memo dated 10.3.2003 was issued. The said charge memo is challenged on the ground that the petitioner cannot be penalised for approaching the Court for redressal of her grievance and since the document produced before this Court is not a confidential document and was not in safe custody, but was only a communication by the Institute to another employee and by obtaining photostat copy of the same, the same is filed it before this Court in n the course of legal proceedings and the communication cannot be termed as unauthorised communication of office document. Further, the charge memo is an empty formality as it is with predetermined mind. 5. This Court by an order dated 3.2003, while admitting the Writ Petition granted interim stay and the interim stay was also made absolute on 26.8.2003. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The only legal issue to be decided in this case is whether the respondents are entitled to issue the impugned charge on the allegations contained therein. Admittedly, the petitioner's entitlement for promotion was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.325 of 2001. When the Writ Appeal was pending, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the rival candidate is being considered and to establish that there is an urgency in the matter as the rival candidate was directed to give copies of his bio data, his appraisal report, etc., the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Petition in the pending Appeal, seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents herein from promoting Dr.Pitchai. 7. It is to be noted that Dr.Pitchai was impleaded as the third respondent in W.A.No.325 of 2001 and the Hon'ble Division Bench also granted an interim order on 11.10.2002. Therefore, the petitioner in order to protect her service conditions and her promotional avenues, has resorted to file a document, which no doubt is an internal communication, but cannot be termed to be a confidential or a privileged document. Therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner that her action of filing the unauthorised communication of Office document for her personal gain without proper permission, cannot be sustained, since it cannot be stated to be an unauthorised communication. Admittedly, if promotion is granted to Dr.Pitchai, the petitioner will be an aggrieved person. No doubt the conduct of the petitioner may not be appreciable, but the same cannot form a basis for framing a charge. It is a settled legal proposition that no person can be threatened by departmental action for having approached the Court of law for redressal of his/her grievance. With a zeal to protect her interest, the petitioner has resorted to such a step, probably with an intention to demonstrate before this Court that there is an urgent need to pass an interim order. Therefore, nothing more could be attributed to the conduct of the petitioner. 8. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the petitioner's own case on an earlier occasion an order of punishment was imposed against the petitioner since she has produced certain records before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court had granted an interim stay. Thus, in view of the settled legal proposition and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the charge against the petitioner cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled to succeed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rpa To 1. The Vice-Chancellor Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University) Gandhigram, Dindigul 624 302. 2. The Registrar Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University) Gandhigram, Dindigul 624 302. +1cc to Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate Sr 54101 +1cc to Mr.R.Nandakumar, Advocate Sr 54273 GR(CO) km/12.8. W.P.No.9366 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/