Madras High Court

P.Sivanatham vs The Managing Director on 17 June, 2022

                                                                              W.P.No.14893 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                Dated : 17.06.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                              W.P.No.14893 of 2022
                                                       and
                                         W.M.P Nos.14099 & 14101 of 2022


                       P.Sivanatham                              ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                       1. The Managing Director
                          Tamilnadu State Transport
                          Corporation (Salem Zone)
                          No.12, Ramakrishna Salai
                          Salem-636 007.

                       2. The General Manager
                          Tamilnadu State Transport
                          Corporation, Salem Division
                          No.12, Ramakrishna Road
                          Salem-7.

                       3. The Branch Manager
                           Edapaddi Branch
                          Tamilnadu State Transport
                          Corporation, Edapaddi
                          Salem District.                        ... Respondents




                       Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P.No.14893 of 2022

                       Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                       India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining
                       to the proceeding in Ku.No.426 – 10389 – T2- Tha.A-Poka (Salem)
                       2020 dated 10.12.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the
                       same.
                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi

                                        For Respondents : Mr. Ganthamaraj
                                                          Standing Counsel



                                                            ORDER

By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final

disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. According to the writ petitioner, the petitioner was working

as Technician in the 3rd respondent Corporation. The petitioner as a

member of Labour Welfare Protection Trade Union, sent several

representations regarding the issuance of safe boxes for keeping ticket

bundle to the conductors, collection bags and all other essential

accessories and equipments for efficient services. Thereafter, the

management and 2nd respondent issued a charge memo in Ku.No.426-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14893 of 2022

10389-T2-Tha.A-Poka (Salem) -2020 dated 10.12.2021 to the

petitioner alleging that he has not attended work on 10.12.2021 and

also relying upon the charges i) on 14.08.2015, without prior

permission for not attending the work for 115 days, six months

increment was stopped; ii) on 20.07.2017, again without prior

permission not attending the work for 18 days; iii) on 27.09.2018, for

not maintaining the proper work, fine of Rs.500/- was imposed. To the

aforesaid charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on

20.12.2021. After receipt of the same, the respondents did not conduct

proper enquiry or issue any further order till date. The aforesaid

impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2021 was issued by the 2nd

respondent based on an unenforceable standing order. The respondent

Corporation standing order has been declared as unenforceable by the

Labour Court, Salem in I.E.S.O.P No.1 of 2010 by its judgment dated

18.09.2017. The petitioner made a representation dated 16.06.2021 to

the respondents to withdraw the final order issued under the

unenforceable Standing order. But, till date the respondents have not

considered the representations. Challenging the aforesaid charge

memo, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14893 of 2022

Court.

3. Mr. Ganthamaraj, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for

the respondents.

4. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner can

challenge the charge memo or not?

5. The impugned charge memo dated 10.12.2021 was served to

the petitioner asking to submit his explanation within four days. The

petitioner has sent his detailed explanation and the above proceedings is

under progress. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition challenging the impugned charge memo.

6. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that in the case of

Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in AIR 2007

SC 906, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, held as

follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14893 of 2022

"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."

(ii) In Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14893 of 2022

held as follows:-

''Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court.''

7. Inview of the legal principles settled, Writ Petition against the

charge memo/show cause notice, cannot be entertained in a routine

manner and judicial review against the charge memo or show cause

notice is certainly limited and does not infringe in any legal right. The

representations and the explanations with regard to the charge memo as

well as the show cause notice are pending before the authorities

concerned. This being the factum, the writ petitioner has to participate

in the process of enquiry and the respondents have to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings at an earliest. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the impugned charge memo framed by the 2nd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14893 of 2022

respondent in the absence of any legal infinities.