Madras High Court
T.Geetharani vs The Regional Joint Director on 18 October, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P(MD)No.25611 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P(MD)No.25611 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.19698 of 2022
T.Geetharani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Joint Director
(Employment & Training),
Government ITI Complex,
Azhagar Kovil Main Road,
Moontrumavadi,
K.Pudur,
Madurai-625 002.
2.The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Natham Road,
Kullanampatti,
Dindigul-624 003. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling records of first
respondent herein pertaining to the Charge Memorandum No.e.f.vz;:
867/c/2020, dated 20.07.2022 and quash it as illegal and pass such further or
other orders as this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.25611 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy
For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order, dated 20.07.2022
passed by the first respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Assistant Training
Officer in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Dindigul. She was
charged with a charge memorandum, dated 20.07.2022 containing two charges.
The first charge is that by misusing her official capacity as Government
Employee, she dishonestly deputed her students to one Samiya tailoring for
resorting violent action on 13.01.2020. On the other hand, the petitioner filed
complaint on 21.10.2019 in the Dindigul North Police Station against the said
Samiya tailoring shop and the same is pending for enquiry. No such incidence
on 13.01.2020 as stated in the charge memorandum. The second one is that she
threatened the Principal and all staffs working in the said ITI that she would file
a complaint under SC / ST Atrocities Act and be put in trouble. The said charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was not substantiated by giving the necessary imputations. The said charge is
vague. Therefore, both charges are vague. Hence, he prays to quash the order
passed by the first respondent.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
documents, which were required by the petitioner was not furnished to him that
is a reason he could not participate in the enquiry and in support of his
contention, he has also do the attention of this Court to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772 and the relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted hereunder for better appreciation and understanding:
"39. The proposition of law that a government employee
facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to all the relevant
statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have
a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the department
enquiry against the charges is too well established to need any
further reiteration. Nevertheless given the facts of this case we
may re-emphasise the law as stated by this Court in State of
Punjab vs. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 155:
"6. The State contended that the respondent was not
entitled to get copies of statements. The reasoning of
the State was that the respondent was given the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during
the cross-examination the respondent would have the
opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the
statements. It is contended that the synopsis was
adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the
evidence.
7. The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken is that
the government servant is afforded a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself against charges on which
inquiry is held. The government servant should be
given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his
innocence. He can do so when he is told what the
charges against him are. He can do so by cross-
examining the witnesses produced against him. The
object of supplying statements is that the government
servant will be able to refer to the previous statements
of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the
government servant. Unless the statements are given to
the government servant he will not be able to have an
effective and useful cross-examination.
8. It is unjust and unfair to deny the government
servant copies of statements of witnesses examined
during investigation and produced at the inquiry in
support of the charges levelled against the government
servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of
giving the government servant a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the action
proposed to be taken."
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted in view of G.O(Ms)No.81, Human Resources Management (N)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Department, dated 04.08.2022, the delinquent officer is entitled only to peruse
the records and to submit his written explanation, for which, 30 days time is
granted.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
6. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that as per G.O(Ms)No.
81, dated 04.08.2022, the petitioner is not entitled for the copy of the
documents, but it is a basic rule that in the disciplinary proceedings, the
documents including the copy of the complaint, list of witnesses has to be
furnished to the delinquent officer so as to enable him to give explanation. As a
result, a fair and proper enquiry can be conducted by the Department.
7. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
cited supra, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent to furnish all the
documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today [18.10.2024]. The petitioner
on receipt of the documents furnished by the Department has to submit her
explanation within a period of four weeks thereof. The petitioner is also
directed to co-operate with the enquiry proceedings after submitting the
explanation on receipt of the documents furnished by the Department. The first
respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and
directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
18.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Regional Joint Director
(Employment & Training),
Government ITI Complex,
Azhagar Kovil Main Road,
Moontrumavadi,
K.Pudur,
Madurai-625 002.
2.The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Natham Road,
Kullanampatti,
Dindigul-624 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
BTR
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
