Madras High Court
G.Stanly Hebzon Singh vs The Principal Secretary on 3 October, 2023
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
and
W.P.No.27839 of 2023
G.Stanly Hebzon Singh ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
Tamil Nadu.
2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Krishnapuram,
Mylapore, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram,
Madambakkam Town, Pathuvanchery,
Tiruvanchery, Selaiyur,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 126.
4.CSI, Bartholomew's Church,
Through the Chairman,
Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
5.CSI, Diocese of Madras,
Through the Bishop,
P.O.4914, Cathedral Road,
Chennai – 600 086.
6.Andrew Edwin.S ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to
initiate disciplinary action against the 6th respondent, the Police Officer,
working as SSI at S12 Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chitlapakkam,
Chennai in holding the post of full time secretary in the office of the 4 th
respondent-C.S.I. Bartholomew's Church, Pammal, the religious
organization in violation of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct
Rules, 1973.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Bindran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
In view of the order to be passed in this Writ Petition, no prejudice
would be caused to be respondents 4 to 6 herein and hence, notice to the
said respondents is dispensed with.
2. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
respondents 2 and 3 to initiate disciplinary action against the 6 th
respondent. Apart from requesting for action to be initiated against the 6 th
respondent, no other relief is sought for. The locus of a third party to seek
for departmental or any other action against a Government employee has
already been dealt with by this Court.
3. At the outset, the Writ Petition itself is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of maintainability, since this Court had already held in the
case of Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat,
Chennai and others passed in W.P.(MD) No.8871 of 2018, dated
26.04.2018, that a third party cannot stand in the way between an
employee and the employer in matters of service disputes, especially, in
the context of disciplinary proceedings. For such a proposition, the
learned Single Judge therein had placed reliance on a decision of the
Hon'ble Division Bench and had come to such a conclusion in the
following manner:-
..... “14. As it is rightly pointed out by the
learned Amicus, the law in this regard is well
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
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.
15. The theory of personal injury can very
well be pressed into the service in this case.
16. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party
and though he has claimed to be the social worker,
he cannot claim any personal injury of the case of
the alleged delayed action of disciplinary
proceedings against the official respondent against
the private respondent.
17. Once the third party cease to be the
person, without any personal injury, he cannot
maintain the Writ Petition as an adversary Writ
Petition.
18. If the petitioner files any adversary writ
petition on the service side, because he is a third
party, the next question would be naturally raised
is that, whether he can file such petitions by way of
Public Interest Litigations(PIL).
19. In this regard, it is also brought to the
notice of this Court that, the very same petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
already approached this Court by filing a PIL,
where the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(MD).No.6734 of 2007 in Sudalaikannu Vs., the
Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department and others dated 23.12.2008
made the following observations which can usefully
be pressed into service herein.
“It is seen that the petitioner belongs to a
particular political party and he also functioned as
a Councilor of the Municipal Corporation. Further,
the petition has been filed on frivolous reasons
after knowing fully well that action is being taken
against respondents-4 to 7. It has been repeatedly
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by
this Court that vexatious applications in the guise
of public interest litigations should not be
entertained. Since the present petition is one of
such kind, we hold that the petitioner has no locus
standi to file it and the same is liable to be
dismissed.”
20. Since the very same petitioner has been
branded as the frivolous litigant by the judicial
pronouncement of the Division Bench Judgment
cited supra, with regard to the genuineness of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
litigant's nature, attached with the nature of this
Court, one cannot have any doubt that, the
petitioner certainly has not approached this Court
for any good intention and he might have
approached this Court with any other private
intention (i.e.,) the reason why the petitioner
knowing well that he cannot file the writ petition
against the official respondent herein, for the
alleged inaction on their part on the private
respondents herein by way of service dispute, has
filed this Writ Petition.
21. If such kind of frivolous litigations are
entertained by this Court, that too, in exercising the
extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court is afraid that, there will be pouring of such
frivolous litigations by unscrupulous persons every
day and that will open the flood gate to so many
unscrupulous persons to abuse the process of law,
to settle their personal score in the guise of service
dispute. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that this petitioner does not have any locus to
maintain this writ petition for more than one
reason, as he has already been considered to be a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
frivolous litigant by the Division Bench of this
Court.”
4. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the petitioner
herein, who is not an employee and is a third party, cannot maintain the
present Writ Petition. Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in
this Writ Petition does not deserve consideration.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.10.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH, J.
hvk
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
Tamil Nadu.
2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Krishnapuram,
Mylapore, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram,
Madambakkam Town, Pathuvanchery,
Tiruvanchery, Selaiyur,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 126.
W.P.No.28319 of 2023
03.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
