Madras High Court
The District Collector vs M.Subramanian on 30 March, 2022
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No. 302 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) No. 2896 of 2022
The District Collector,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District. .. Appellant
Vs
M.Subramanian .. Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 04.02.2020 made in W.P.(MD) No. 20783 of
2015.
For Appellant : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Ms.M.Padmavathy
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this writ appeal is made to the order dated 04
February 2020 recorded on W.P(MD) No.20783 of 2015. This appeal
is by the respondent in the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
2. Learned Additional Advocate General for the
appellant – State Authority has submitted that the charge memo
issued to the writ petitioner dated 13.08.2015 is interfered with by
the learned Single Judge on the grounds which are not available as
judicial scrutiny, more particularly the finding to the effect that, the
institution of departmental enquiry was late and further that, no
explanation was offered as to why charges were dropped qua other
employees would not be a guiding factor to test the issuance of the
charge sheet and therefore this appeal be entertained. It is further
submitted that, learned Single Judge has also interfered on the
ground that it is the Government which is the competent authority
to institute departmental enquiry, which is inconsistent with the
Rules which holds the field and on that account also the appeal
needs to be entertained. It is submitted that the impugned order be
quashed and set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ
petitioner has submitted that, the interference in the departmental
enquiry by learned Single Judge can not be said to be erroneous in
any manner. According to her the delay of about four years was
fatal and the Collector had resorted to pick and choose manner in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
instituting and dropping the charges against similarly situated
persons. It is also submitted that, since more than one persons
were involved in the matter, the competent authority to initiate
departmental proceedings was Government and therefore the
Collector being incompetent to institute enquiry, the enquiry was
without authority of law and therefore setting aside the charge
sheet can not be said to be erroneous and therefore this appeal be
dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties and having considered the material on record this
Court finds as under:
4.1 The challenge in the writ petition was to the
institution of departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner vide
charge memo dated 13 August 2015. The only point for
consideration in the writ petition was whether the issuance of
charge sheet can said to be unsustainable on any permissible
parameters.
4.2 We find that, learned Single Judge has set aside
the said charge memo mainly on three grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
(a) The first ground was that the delay of four years was
fatal. We find that the petitioner has not retired on superannuation
and therefore the statutory bar of three years would not come in
play in this case. The charge memo could not have been interfered
with on the ground of delay.
(b) The second point which weighed with learned Single
Judge is that, the charge memo was dropped qua one Block
Engineer and one Union Overseer who could also be said to be
responsible for inspecting the property and marking the site for
construction. We find that, it is for the disciplinary authority to take
appropriate call who was responsible for the misconduct alleged and
the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority can not be substituted
like this by the Writ Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
(c) The third point which weighed with learned Single
Judge is, the competence of Collector. According to learned Single
Judge, it was the Government which was required to take a call
since more than one employee were involved in the matter. We find
that, if the charges are interconnected and in the opinion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
competent authority, all the charge sheeted employees need to be
tried together, it would become a case of joint enquiry and only in
that case, it would be relevant to decide who would be the
disciplinary authority. From among the persons charged together,
the disciplinary authority qua the highest ranking employee may
become disciplinary authority, which can be Government as well.
The present one is not one such case. The concept of joint enquiry
and the Government being the disciplinary authority qua the present
petitioner also is erroneously brought into play.
4.3 We find that, the interference by learned Single
Judge on all three grounds is unsustainable, the same is error, it is
also an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the
same needs to be corrected under Clause 15 of Letters Patent in
this intra-court appeal. This appeal therefore needs to be allowed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the following
order is passed:
5.1 This appeal is allowed.
5.2 The order dated 04 February 2020 recorded on
W.P(MD) No.20783 of 2015 is quashed and set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
5.3 Challenge to the charge memo dated
13.08.2015, issued to the writ petitioner is rejected. Any
proceedings, which is required to be taken or which is already taken
in connection with and pursuant thereto, will take its own further
course, in accordance with law and if the petitioner is aggrieved by
the final outcome thereof, it is always open to him to take recourse
to remedy available under law, firstly before the Appellate Authority
of the Department.
5.4 No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition would not survive.
(P.U., J) (R.V., J)
30.03.2022
Index : No
pkn/3
To
The District Collector,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
pkn
W.A(MD)No.302 of 2022
30.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
