Madras High Court
R.Arumugam vs The Commissioner on 1 March, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
R.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities,
Kamarajar Salai,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
4. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
Manaparai,
Trichy District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Vaiyampatti Police Station,
Trichy District.
6.Bharathidasan
7.Ragupathi
8.Ponraj Kothalam ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 3 to
5 to conduct enquiry and to take appropriate action as against the 7th and 8th
Respondents for the reason to help the 6th Respondent to escape him from the
criminal case in Spl.S.C.No.36/2019 in Crime No.350/2017, pending before the
learned I-Additional District Judge (PCR Cases), Trichy, by considering the
petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2021.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Yamuna
For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
For R-6 to R-8 : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Mandamus, to direct the
respondents 3 to 5 to conduct enquiry and to take appropriate action as against
the 7th and 8th respondents for the reason to help the 6th respondent to escape
him from the criminal case in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2019 in Crime No.350 of 2017,
pending before the learned I-Additional District Judge (PCR Cases), Trichy, by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the
property comprised in Survey No.334/2 situated at Kattaiyampatti Village,
Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District from the sixth respondent by a registered
sale deed dated 25.03.2015 vide Document No.1686/2015. The sixth
respondent is working as a Junior Assistant in the Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare Department at Theni District. While being so, on
01.10.2017, when the petitioner and his aunt Vellaiammal visited the said
property, the sixth respondent along with his henchmen jointly encroached the
said property and the same was questioned by them. The sixth respondent and
his henchmen intercepted the petitioner and tried to attack with deadly
weapons. They also scolded the petitioner with filthy languages by using caste
name. Therefore, the petitioner lodged complaint and the same was registered
in Crime No.350 of 2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Section
147, 148, 420, 447, 294(b), 354, 506(1) of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In fact, the
sixth respondent and another was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
3. While pending investigation, the petitioner's aunt Vellaiammal died on
27.02.2018 and even before her death, she executed a Will in favour of the
petitioner in respect of the subject property. After registration of F.I.R as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
against the sixth respondent, he was suspended from service. After completion
of investigation in Crime No.350 of 2017, the fourth respondent filed final
report and the same has been taken cognizance in Special S.C.No.36 of 2019 on
the file of the District Court(PCR Cases), Trichy.
4. Now, the allegation in the complaint lodged by the petitioner is that on
25.01.2018, the seventh respondent issued a field work certificate to the sixth
respondent without mentioning the proceedings number and also without any
seal to take a ground of alibi, as if, on the date of occurrence, the sixth
respondent was in field inspection. The respondents produced false
information by misusing their official power. Therefore, the petitioner lodged
complaint to take appropriate departmental action as against the respondents 7
and 8 herein.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 8
submitted that the petitioner has no locus to seek direction for taking
departmental action against the respondents 7 and 8 herein. Once the petitioner
lodged complaint and it is open to the employer to take appropriate action.
Further, the petitioner has no locus to maintain the Writ Petition, since he is not
a person to ask for direction to take departmental proceedings as against the
respondents 7 and 8 herein. In support of his contention, he relied upon a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
judgment of this Court dated 26.04.2018 passed in W.P.(MD).No.8871 of 2018
and this Court, after relying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Rajnit Prasad Vs. Union of India and others reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 313 held 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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
6. Further, 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.
7. That apart, on perusal of records, it revealed that the allegation made
in the complaint lodged by the petitioner was that the seventh respondent issued
certificate as if the sixth respondent was in field inspection on the date of
occurrence. Therefore, the petitioner challenged its genuinity and seeking
direction to take appropriate departmental action as against the respondents 7
and 8 herein. Now, trial has not yet commenced in Special S.C.No.36 of 2019
and when the sixth respondent produced the said document, it can be tested
before the Trial Court by way of cross-examination. Before that, no action can
be taken as against the respondents 7 and 8 herein.
8. In view of the above, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition cannot
be granted, since the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. This Writ Petition
is dismissed. No costs.
01.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Commissioner,
Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities,
Kamarajar Salai,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
4. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
Manaparai,
Trichy District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Vaiyampatti Police Station,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lm
W.P.(MD).No.21554 of 2021
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
