Madras High Court
M.Jeeva Kumar vs The General Manager on 16 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14942 and 14943 of 2022
M.Jeeva Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Zone, Nagercoil Division,
Nesamony Nagar, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Assistant Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Zone, Nagercoil Division,
Ranithottai Branch – I, Nesamony Nagar,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Zone, Nagercoil Division,
Ranithottai Branch – I, Nesamony Nagar,
Kanyakumari District.
4.Junior Engineer,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Zone, Nagercoil Division,
Ranithottai Branch – I, Nesamony Nagar,
Kanyakumari District.
5.J.Muthuswamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
6.S.Princy Prayerlet ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned impugned charge Memo issued by the 1st respondent General
Manager in No.649/Legal-II/Discipline/ThaAPoKa/Ra-1/2022 dated
19.01.2022 and all proceedings in furtherance thereof, Quash the same as
illegal and void.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar,
For M/s.Issac Chambers.
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sebaraj,
Standing Counsel for R1 to R4.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner challenges the impugned charge memo dated 19.01.2022
issued by the first respondent.
3.The writ petitioner is presently working as Senior Driver in the
respondent corporation. Four articles of charge have been framed against the
writ petitioner. They are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
“(i) On 11.01.2022 at Ranithottam Branch-I, you have
involved into unnecessary arguments with Junior Engineer in
service at night about break issues in the bus and you have
captured in in your mobile and uploaded the same in Social
Media and Face Book with an intention to derogate the dignity
of State Transport Corporation.
(ii) The said bus had plied without any issues from
01.01.2022 to 10.01.2022. While so, you have uploaded a
wrong statement in Social Media and in Facebook stating that
the bus had some break issues.
(iii) You are irresponsible and negligent in work.
(iv) Your had committed mistake under Standing Order
No.16(4) of TNSTC-TVL.”
Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions
set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this
Court to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
5.Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the transport corporation
submitted that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India rarely interferes with a charge memo. Unless the charge
memo has been issued by an authority who is not competent or for malafide
considerations, this Court ought not to quash it. He also submitted that the
charges cannot be said to be vague. The allegation against the writ petitioner is
that he entered into an unnecessary controversy with a superior officer and
spread falls information about the employer in the social media. He also
pointed out that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court by filing W.P.
(MD)No.8604 of 2017 and that the same suffered dismissal on 17.08.2022. He
submitted that the petitioner was furnished with all the documents which he
sought. The enquiry was adjourned from time to time and it is now posted to
06.10.2020. The learned standing counsel stated that the petitioner will be
given fullest opportunity to defend himself and that this Court can relegate the
petitioner to face the enquiry. He called for dismissal of the writ petition.
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record. The primary ground urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the charges are completely vague. I am not able to accept the
said contention as regards charges 1 and 2. The misconduct attributed to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
writ petitioner are sufficiently clear and it is for the petitioner to establish his
innocence in the domestic enquiry. However, charge Nos.3 and 4 are
completely vague. They are bereft of any particulars. The third charge is that
the petitioner conducted himself in a negligent and indifferent manner. The
petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner was served with a one page charge
memo. The charge itself must indicate how the writ petitioner had been
negligent or indifferent. The details are not set out. Standing Order 16(4)
reads that neglect of work or habitual negligence in duty would constitute an
act of misconduct. In fact Articles 3 and 4 of the charge memo are one and the
same. What applies to the third charge will apply to the fourth charge also. Of
course, the learned standing counsel would draw my attention to the order dated
17.08.2022 made W.P.(MD)No.8604 of 2017 and anchored his objection on that
basis. But there must be a reference to the said writ petition and the subject
matter of said writ petition in the charge memo also. The said details cannot be
introduced at the time of arguments. My attention is drawn to the decision
reported (2011) 14 SCC 379 (Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya
Gramin Bank). Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment are as follows:-
“12. We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated
31.01.1989 no statement of imputations giving the particulars of the
loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loans
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
sanctioned, disbursed and misappropriated were furnished to the
appellant, and yet the disciplinary authority has called upon the
appellant to submit his written defence statement in reply to the
charges. We fail to appreciate how the appellant could have submitted
his written statement in defence in respect of the charges and how a
fair enquiry could be held unless he was furnished with the particulars
of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of
loan sanctioned, the amounts actually disbursed and the amounts
misappropriated were also furnished in the charge-sheet.
13. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra
Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (supra):
"5. .....The grounds on which it is proposed to take action
have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges
which have to be communicated to the person charged
together with a statement of the allegations on which each
charge is based and any other circumstance which it is
proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has
also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one
of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity
for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and
definitely what the allegations are on which the charges
preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by
projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and
circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the
authorities to be established against him....."
14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case
of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) and in Para
35 of the judgment as reported in the SCC, this Court has observed
that the law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted
against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions
and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of
charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.”
7.The ratio is that if the charge is vague, it is a ground for quashing.
Respectfully adopting the aforesaid ratio, I quash the third and fourth charges in
the impugned charge memo. Charges 1 and 2 are not quashed and it is for the
petitioner to prove his innocence in the domestic enquiry. All his contentions
are left open. The petitioner of course will be given the fullest opportunity to
establish his innocence.
7.The writ petition is partly allowed. No cots. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.20605 of 2022
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
