Madras High Court
Dr.M.Chellamuthu vs The Gandhigram Institute Of Rural on 13 June, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.4606 and 4610 of 2022
Dr.M.Chellamuthu ... Appellant/Petitioner in both the
Writ Appeals
Vs.
1.The Gandhigram Institute of Rural
Health and Family Welfare Trust,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Soundaram Nagar,
Gandhigram Post,
Dindigul District.
2.The Director,
The Gandhigram Institute of Rural
Health and Family Welfare Trust,
Soundaram Nagar,
Gandhigram Post,
Dindigul District.
3.Dr.S.Seethalakshmi,
The Director,
The Gandhigram Institute of Rural
Health and Family Welfare Trust,
Soundaram Nagar,
Gandhigram Post,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents/Respondents in both
the Writ Appeals
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, to set aside the common order dated 08.03.2022 in W.P(MD)Nos.
9829 and 12094 of 2021 and allow the Writ Appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
For Appellant in both : Mr.A.R.Jeyarhuthran
the appeals
For Respondents in : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
both the appeals for M/s.V.Vijay Shankar
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)
These Writ Appeals have been preferred as against the common
order dated 08.03.2022, made in W.P(MD)Nos.9829 and 12094 of 2021
by learned Single Judge, by dismissing the above writ petitions.
2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these Writ
Appeals are as follows:-
2.1 The appellant is a Ph.D. Doctorate in Social Work having
other degrees like Bachelor of Development Administration, P.G. Decree
in Social Work, P.G. Diploma in Counseling, M.A., Sociology, M.Phil.,
Sociology and P.G. Diploma in Health Promotion and education. The
appellant was appointed as a Teaching Assistant in the first respondent
Trust, which was established in the year 1964 with the funding of non-
Government Organization.
2.2 A charge memo and suspension order was issued by the
second respondent against the appellant. The appellant challenged the
charge memo dated 26.08.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2020 on the
ground that it is a predetermined one. While granting interim stay, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
Court observed that the impugned charge memo is not proper and it
expresses a view on the merits of charges against the appellant. The
appellant filed W.P.(MD) No.116 of 2020, challenging the order of
suspension, which was disposed of with certain directions. Unfortunately,
the appellant was not reinstated for the reasons assigned by the second
respondent.
2.3 When W.P.(MD) No.112 of 2020 was pending and the order
of stay was in force, the second respondent recalled the charge memo
dated 26.08.2019 on 27.01.2020 and issued a fresh charge memo dated
28.01.2020. Challenging the said charge memo, the appellant filed W.P.
(MD) No.9829 of 2021. Challenging the order, rejecting the request of
petitioners to engage a counsel or a retired employee to assist him
during domestic enquiry, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.
(MD) No.12094 of 2021. In the second writ petition, the petitioner also
challenged the order appointing enquiry officer and presenting officer to
conduct the domestic enquiry. Both the Writ Petitions were heard
together and dismissed by learned Single Judge with a direction to the
respondents to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. A specific
direction was also issued to the appellant to cooperate for the early
disposal of the enquiry proceedings by the respondents. The Writ Petition
in W.P.(MD) No.12094 of 2021, which challenges the appointment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
enquiry officer, was dismissed holding that there is no infirmity as such in
the impugned order appointing the enquiry officer, passed by the second
respondent. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the
Writ Petitions, these Writ Appeals are filed by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in both these writ appeals
submits that the appellant had requested the respondents to permit him
to engage a retired or senior employee to assist him in the departmental
proceedings. However, he has not been given a fair opportunity by
permitting engagement of senior employee or retired employee to help
him during the department proceedings. Hence, he is not able to
cooperate with the enquiry officer for early disposal of the disciplinary
proceedings and there was no intention to delay the proceedings. This
Court finds no merits or valid reasons to interfere with any part of the
order of learned Single Judge on the grounds raised by the appellant.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the second charge memo
is barred since no fresh charge memo can be issued for the same cause.
The appellant was placed under prolonged suspension for more than 2½
years and therefore, it is contended that the respondents have decided to
impose major punishment on the appellant to wreak vengeance and that
the proceedings are initiated with malafides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
5. Learned counsel also pointed out that the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against almost 20 other employees of the
institution only on the ground that they were against the appointment of
the third respondent as Director. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that since the proceedings were initiated at the
instance of the third respondent out of ill-will, the fresh charge memo as
well as the order appointing enquiry officer are vitiated for want of
bonafides. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant approached
the respondents to supply necessary documents to defend the charges
and the appellant was never served with such documents, thereby the
appellant is deprived of a fair opportunity to defend the charges.
6. This Court is unable to find any substance in any of the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The allegations
levelled by the appellant against the Director are not substantiated and
this Court is unable to find any reason to sustain any of the allegations so
as to describe the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as one
fainted with malafide. The first charge memo issued against the appellant
was questioned earlier mainly on the ground that the charge memo
indicates the pre-determination of the establishment against the
appellant and therefore, it is vitiated. This Court also granted interim stay
by making specific observations that the charge memo is not proper and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
the same indicates a final decision on the proof of charges. Therefore, it
is to avoid a technical hurdle the second charge memo was issued.
Having regard to the specific circumstances under which present charge
memo is issued, this Court is unable to find any lack of bonafides in the
impugned charge memo, which contains specific charges. This Court finds
no valid reason to quash the second charge memo. Learned Single Judge
after considering the facts and legal aspects with regard to the specific
challenge to the second charge memo dismissed the Writ Petition.
7. As regards the appointment of enquiry officer, who was
required to carry forward the disciplinary proceedings, no special reason
for challenge is put forth. The appellant has raised some grounds,
challenging the appointment of the presenting officer. He makes an
attempt to challenge the appointment of enquiry officer on the basis of a
few allegation, which are not germane to his grievance expressed.
Therefore, learned Judge has rightly dismissed the said Writ Petition also.
In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in these Writ Appeals
filed.
8. After dismissing the Writ Petitions, learned Single Judge also
issued directions to the respondents to dispose of the disciplinary
proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
copy of that order. After noting non-cooperation for completing the
disciplinary proceedings by the appellant, a specific direction was also
issued to the appellant to cooperate for the early disposal of the enquiry
proceedings and the consequences to follow, if the appellant refuses to
cooperate.
9. Regarding the submission of the appellant that he should be
given permission to engage a retired or senior employee to assist him in
defending the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant has not made any
specific request for that, while dismissing the Writ Petitions. Since a
request is made and it was not dealt with by learned Single Judge in the
common order made in the Writ Petitions, this Court directs the
respondents to consider the request of the appellant, seeking assistance
of a retired or senior employee in defending his case. Though, this
request was again rejected by the second respondent on 02.05.2022,
learned counsel for the appellant states that the Writ Petitions were
dismissed on 08.03.2022. The request was rejected mainly on the
ground that all the persons, who are supposed to participate in the
domestic enquiry are not law graduates and hence, it is not necessary to
seek assistance of a retired or senior employee to the appellant during
the enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
10. The reasons assigned by the second respondent to reject the
representation of appellant for getting assistance of retired or senior
employee is not proper. Though it is pointed out that the appellant
requests for getting the assistance of an advocate during the department
proceedings was rejected long back, this Court finds some justification in
the said decision in the absence of specific provision in the Service Rules.
However, the request for engaging the assistance of a retired employee
or senior employee during the course of domestic enquiry can be
considered, if it is not going to cause any hindrance to the respondents to
conclude the enquiry proceedings within a reasonable time. However, the
request of the appellant for engaging the assistance of retired employee
or senior employee still be rejected on merits for valid grounds. Hence, it
would be open to the respondents to consider the representation of the
appellant for assistance during enquiry afresh in the light of the above
facts and the specific grievance of the petitioner and it is open to the
enquiry officer to decide whether such permission can be granted having
regard to several circumstances, so that the enquiry against the
appellant will be completed in a fair manner.
11. The enquiry officer is directed to complete the enquiry
proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
getting the report from the enquiry officer and after affording sufficient
opportunity to the appellant within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of getting the report. When the copy of enquiry report along with
the second show cause notice is served to the appellant, the appellant is
directed to send his explanations within a period of two weeks from date
of receiving the second show cause notice.
12. With the above observations and directions, these Writ
Appeals are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are also dismissed.
[S.S.S.R.,J] [S.S.Y.,J.]
13.06.2022
Index :Yes/No
sj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9/10
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
and
S.SRIMATHY,J.
sj
W.A(MD)Nos.510 and 512 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10/10
