Madras High Court
Velimuthu vs M/S.Tamilnadu Grama Bank Limited on 4 August, 2022
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2022
Velimuthu ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.M/s.Tamilnadu Grama Bank Limited,
Represented by Chairman,
Head Office,
No.6, Ercaud Road,
Hasthampatti,
Salem – 636 008.
2.The Regional Manager,
Regional Office,
M/s.Tamilnadu Grama Bank Limited,
West Car Street,
Tirunelveli Town,
Tirunelveli – 627 006.
3.G.Babu
S/o.Not Known,
Manager,
Regional Office,
M/s.Tamilnadu Grama Bank Limited,
West Car Street,
Tirunelveli Town,
Tirunelveli – 627 006. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2022, within the time stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.David Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner is the third party, who seeks for a direction to the Bank to
consider his representation, wherein he has sought for creating an encumbrance
on the proposed disbursement of the retirement benefits of the third respondent
herein.
2.Such a claim of the third party cannot be sustained in a writ petition. This
aspect was considered in detail by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case
of Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and
others, passed in W.P.(MD).No.8871 of 2018, dated 26.04.2018, has upheld this
ratio in the following manner:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
'' 8. The learned senior counsel, in response would submit
that, the law is well settled in this regard as a third party cannot
stand in the way in between the employee and the employer in
matters of service disputes, especially in the context of
disciplinary proceedings.
9. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would rely
upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case
Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and others reported in (2000) 9
SCC 313. The learned senior counsel has relied upon paragraphs
8, 9 and 10 and the same which reads as under:
“8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus
standi" has been widened by this Court through its various
decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest
Litigation where it has been said that Public Interest
Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the
High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by
means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court.
(See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of
India , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , State of
Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical
College, Shimla and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.
Muddappa .
9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of
departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to
be initiated by the Government against its employees, a
person who is not even remotely connected with those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the
departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition
in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action
against an employee is taken by the Government for various
reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the
employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in
which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as
required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a
matter between the employer and the employee, and a
stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to
have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of
general importance is not involved in disciplinary
proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the
instance of persons who are not connected with those
proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of
Court.
10. In view of the above, it is not open to the
petitioner to challenge the Order of the High Court by which
the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr. U.N. Biswas
was quashed. The permission to file the special leave
petition is, therefore, refused.”
10. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon the
decision of the learned Judge of this Court in the matter of
K.Padma vs., Vigilance Cell, Madras and Others reported in
(2007) 3 MLJ 639, where the learned senior counsel relied upon
the following passages:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
“The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition
is that the District Munsif, Namakkal, while discharging his
judicial function, committed irregularities, which made the
petitioner to make a complaint to the first respondent, the
Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras. The Vigilance Cell sent
recommendations on the same to the Principal District
Judge, Namakkal to enquire into the complaint. Also, the
proceeding before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal,
dated 20.12.2004 which is the Enquiry Report, is filed in the
typed set of papers.
2. The entire exercise by the petitioner is highly
misconceived. When a complaint against a Judicial Officer is
made, it can be enquired into under the Orders of the
Hon'ble Chief Justice. Any further proceedings on which
action to be taken will be decided by him either through the
Committees appointed by him or by the Full Court. The
petitioner being the complainant has no further role to play
in this matter. The Supreme Court, vide decision Rajnit
Prasad v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3469 : 2000 (9) SCC
313 held that once a complaint is given against a judicial
officer his role ends there. The relevant passage found in
paragraphs 9 and 10 are as follows:
“In respect of departmental proceedings
which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the
Government against its employees, a person who is
not even remotely connected with those proceedings
cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental
proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the
High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action
against an employee is taken by the Government for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
various reasons principally for misconduct on the part
of the employee. This action is taken after a domestic
inquiry in which the employee is provided an
opportunity of hearing as required by the
constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter
between the employer and the employee, and a
stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be
said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public
interest of general importance is not involved in
disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are
entertained at the instance of persons who are not
connected with those proceedings, it would amount to
an abuse of the process of Court.
10. In view of the above, it is not open to the
petitioner to challenge the order of the High Court by
which the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr.
U.N. Biswas was quashed. The permission to file the
special leave petition is, therefore, refused.”
3. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is misconceived and clearly not maintainable.
Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2087 are closed.”
11. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the recent
decision of the learned Judge made in V.Vijayalakshmi vs., State
of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and others in W.P.
(MD) No.939 of 2018 dated 17.01.2018, where the learned Judge
has taken the decision that, the disciplinary action against the
officials concerned lies entirely with the employer and it is not for
the writ petitioner, who is a private person to ask for a Writ of
Mandamus in this regard. The relevant portion of the judgment
reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
“4. The specific complaint of the writ petitioner is
that for a period of suspension, that is, from 04.08.2015 to
10.08.2017, even though her salary has been disbursed by
the Government, it was not credited to her account and that
the same was misappropriated. The writ petitioner, therefore
lodged a representation in this regard, for taking
appropriate action against the persons who allegedly
misappropriated the salary payable to her. Since no action
was taken, the present writ petition has been filed for
directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate
criminal and disciplinary action against the erring officials.
5.This Court is of the view that the decision to take
disciplinary action against the officials concerned, lies
entirely with the employer and it is not for the writ
petitioner to ask for issuance of Writ of Mandamus in this
regard. The writ petitioner has no locus standi in the
matter.”
.......
14. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus, the
law in this regard is well settled, as a third party, not connected
with any service dispute cannot maintain the Writ Petition,
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the service
side seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against any
employee or officials.
15. The theory of personal injury can very well be pressed
into the service in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
16. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party and though he
has claimed to be the social worker, he cannot claim any personal
injury of the case of the alleged delayed action of disciplinary
proceedings against the official respondent against the private
respondent.
17. Once the third party cease to be the person, without any
personal injury, he cannot maintain the Writ Petiiton as an
adversary Writ Petition.
18. If the petitioner files any adversary writ petition on the
service side, because he is a third party, the next question would
be naturally raised is that, whether he can file such petitions by
way of Public Interest Litigations(PIL).
19. In this regard, it is also brought to the notice of this
Court that, the very same petitioner already approached this Court
by filing a PIL, where the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.
(MD).No.6734 of 2007 in Sudalaikannu Vs., the Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and
others dated 23.12.2008 made the following observations which
can usefully be pressed into service herein.
“ It is seen that the petitioner belongs to a particular
political party and he also functioned as a Councilor of the
Municipal Corporation. Further, the petition has been filed
on frivolous reasons after knowing fully well that action is
being taken against respondents-4 to 7. It has been
repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by
this Court that vexatious applications in the guise of public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
interest litigations should not be entertained. Since the
present petition is one of such kind, we hold that the
petitioner has no locus standi to file it and the same is liable
to be dismissed.” ''
3.The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the petitioner's claim
to create an encumbrance in the records of the respondent bank, while
disbursement of the retirement benefits of the third respondent, is impermissible.
Consequently, the representation need not be directed to be considered.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
04.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17492 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Sm
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2022
Dated:
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
