Madras High Court
Abdulla vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD).No.2105 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A.(MD).No.2105 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14925 of 2024
Abdulla ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC),
No.293, M.K.M.Salai,
Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15830 of 2024, dated
01.08.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, Senior Counsel
For Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.A.(MD).No.2105 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bhaskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Orders in the disciplinary proceedings launched by the Government
against its employees were challenged by the petitioner, who is a third
party to the proceedings before the writ court.
2.The Writ Court rightly rejected the challenge, relying upon Rajnit
Prasad v. Union of India and Others, wherein it was very clearly held in
service disputes cannot be subject matter of Public Interest Litigation at
the instance of third parties. It is essentially a matter between the
employer and employee.
3.Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would however rely upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6
Supreme Court Cases 749, to contend that the basis for dropping of
proceedings is not correct. No doubt, in Chaturvedi, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has stated that merely because disciplinary proceedings are pending
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for 30 years, they should not be dropped. But there, the challenge was by
the concerned employee himself. Here it is not the case. Later decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India and
Others reported in (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 313, has very clearly
held that service matters cannot be subject matter of Public Interest
Litigation and a third party to the proceedings has no locus standi to
challenge the proceedings. We see no merit in the Appeal.
4.Hence, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
24.10.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Mrn
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC),
No.293, M.K.M.Salai,
Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
24.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
