Madras High Court
R. Muthusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 December, 2021
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNA KUMAR
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
and M.P.No.2 of 2013
R. Muthusamy ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Assistant Director of Survey,
District Survey Office,
Coimbatore – 18. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned charge memo dated 29.10.2012 Ref.
Na.Ka.No.A8/1905 of 2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant all
retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
For petitioner : Mrs. Inthu Karunakaran
For respondents : Mr.T. Sampath Kumar
Government Advocate
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a
writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned charge memo dated
29.10.2012 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.A8/1905 of 2012 issued by the
second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to grant all
retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner while working as a Sub Inspector of Survey South,
Town Survey Section, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore, a complaint
dated 30.10.2001 was filed against him alleging that he has received illegal
gratification of Rs.500/- for granting town survey sketch in respect of a site
in Survey No.417/2A at Anuparpalayam Village. Based on the said
complaint, a case was registered in C.C.No.7 of 2002 on the file of Special
Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After trial,the
learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in
C.C.No.7 of 2002, convicted the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and imposed a fine of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
Rs.1000/-. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed an appeal
before this Court in Crl.A.No.328 of 2004 and this Court has set aside the
order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by judgment dated 07.10.2010.
3. Subsequently, the second respondent has issued a charge memo
dated 14.05.2012 under Section 17-B of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules and the petitioner has appeared before the
Enquiry Officer and submitted his explanation, but no final order has been
passed by the second respondent in the said charge memo dated 14.05.2012.
In the meantime, the second respondent has issued a fresh charge memo for
the same set of charges. When no final order has been passed in the
challenge made by the petitioner against charge memo dated 14.05.2012, a
fresh charge memo issued by the second respondent for the same set of
charges under Section 17-B of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
4. Mr.T.Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent would submit that since additional charges have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
been framed based on the advice from senior officials, fresh charge memo
has been issued and hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On perusal of the impugned charge memo dated 29.10.2012, it
appears that the charges framed are the same as that of the earlier charge
memo dated 14.05.2012. Therefore, the impugned charge memo has been
issued to the petitioner for the same set of charges, which has already been
framed as against the petitioner under Section 17-B of Tamil Nadu
Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules in earlier charge memo
dated 14.05.2012, which is unacceptable.
6. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the
impugned charge memo dated 29.10.2012 and the same is liable to be
quashed. It is open to the respondents to proceed with the charge memo
dated 14.05.2012 in accordance with law.
7. With the above observations, this writ petition stands allowed and
the impugned charge memo dated 29.10.2012 is quashed. It is for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
petitioner to seek for the retirement benefits as per law. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.12.2021
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Index :Yes/No
mp
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Assistant Director of Survey,
District Survey Office,
Coimbatore – 18.
D.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
mp
W.P.No. 11194 of 2013
and M.P.No.2 of 2013
10.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
