Madras High Court
Malarvizhi vs Chief Vigilance Officer on 9 March, 2022
1 S.A.(MD)No.916 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.916 of 2010
Malarvizhi,
Pharmasist,
Railway Hospital Ponmalai,
Ponmalai,
Trichy – 4. ... Appellant / 1st Respondent /
Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Chief Vigilance Officer,
Vigilance Office,
Southern Railway,
Chennai -1.
2. Senior Medical Officer (C.M.S.),
Railway Hospital,
Ponmalai, Trichy – 4.
3. General Manager,
Southern Railway Head Quarters,
Chennai ... Respondents 1 to 3 / Appellants /
Defendants 8 to 10
4. Tahsildar,
Tiruchirappalli.
5. Head Master,
St. Joseph Higher Secondary School,
Ponmalaipatti, Trichy.
6. The Secretary,
Board of Secondary Education,
College Road, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
2 S.A.(MD)No.916 of 2010
7. The Secretary,
Board of Higher Secondary Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
8. The Dean,
Thanjavur Medical College,
Thanjavur.
9. The Director of Medical Education,
Board of Pharmacy, Chennai – 5.
10. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Pharmacy Council,
Chennai – 6. ... Respondents / Respondents /
Defendants 1 to 7
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the reversing Judgment and Decree in A.S.
No.28 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional
Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli, dated 17.02.2010,
against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.897 of 2003 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruchirappalli,
dated 15.04.2004.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Chandrasekar
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Manohar,
Standing Counsel for
Southern Railway.
For R-4,
R-6 to R-10 : Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan,
Special Government Pleader.
For R-5 : No appearance.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
3 S.A.(MD)No.916 of 2010
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.897 of 2003 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Thiruchirappalli, is the appellant in
this second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking the relief of
declaration that she is the adopted daughter of one
P.Rajasekaran and that the adoption deed executed by the
biological mother of the plaintiff is valid and legally
enforceable and that the plaintiff belongs to Hindu Pallan
community. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction for
restraining her employer from taking any disciplinary action
against her. The plaintiff also wanted the name of her
biological father to be deleted from the relevant records. The
plaintiff 's employer was Southern Railway. They filed written
statement controverting the plaint averments. The employer
was shown as impleaded defendants 8 to 10. After the written
statement was filed, they were exonerated and deleted from
the array of parties. The jurisdictional Tahsildar, educational
authorities and the institutions in which the plaintiff studied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were shown as defendants 1 to 7. Defendants 1 to 7 were
remained ex-parte. The trial Court by a cryptic judgment,
decreed the suit on 15.04.2004. The trial Court had granted
all the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff. Even though the
employer was given up, injunction order was passed against
them also. Aggrieved by the same, the Southern Railway filed
C.R.P.No.1143 of 2005 before the High Court. The said C.R.P.
was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.01.2006 with liberty to file
an appeal. Availing the same, the employer filed A.S.No.28 of
2008 before the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruchirappalli. By
the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2010, the
decision of the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was
allowed and the suit came to be dismissed. Challenging the
same, this second appeal came to be filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the
Southern Railway and the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. I can only express my shock that the suit filed by
the plaintiff came to be even numbered in the first instance.
One of the main prayers in the suit was that the plaintiff must
be declared as belonging to Hindu Pallan community. I wanted
to know if the biological parents belong to any scheduled
caste. It is fairly stated that they belong to Sozhiya Vellalar
community and it is only Thiru.P.Rajasekaran who is claimed
to be the adoptive father belonged to Hindu Pallan community.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for
the Southern Railways, such prayer runs counter to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri
Patil V. Additional Commissioner ( (1994) 6 SCC 241 ).
5. Secondly, in respect of any service matter of a
railway employee, it is only the Central Administrative
Tribunal that can have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the civil
Court to entertain the service matters of the Government
employees was expressly taken away by the Administrative
Tribunals Act 1985. Therefore, the suit could not have been
taken on file. The judgment of the trial Court is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“ Since the defendants have not appeared, they have
been set ex-parte. P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to
Ex.A.10 were marked. The claim has been proved. The
suit is decreed as prayed for with cost. ”
This cannot be called as a judgment at all. Even though the
employer has been specifically given up, the decree contains
injunction restraining the employer from taking any
disciplinary action against the plaintiff.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
realising that he is on a vulnerable ground chose to make a
faint submission that he would confine his relief to seeking the
relief of declaring the plaintiff as the adopted daughter of
Thiru.P.Rajasekar. But to obtain such a relief, the plaintiff
must prove all the ingredients of valid adoption.
7. The plaintiff is a woman. The parties are Hindus.
Therefore, the requirements set out in Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 will have to be fulfilled. There must be
giving and taking of the child. In this case, the deed of
adoption is also not registered. Except the plaintiff Malarvizhi,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no one else has been examined as witness. If proper witnesses
had been examined, then this Court can consider granting the
relief of declaration. Malarvizhi was said to have been 4 ½
years old, when she was given in adoption. Therefore, her
testimony does not inspire my confidence. Looked at from any
angle, the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate
Court do not call for any interference.
8. This second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
09.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Thiruchirappalli.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Thiruchirappalli.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.916 of 2010
09.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
