Madras High Court
A.Selvaraj vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.23364 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 19.12.2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 02.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.23364 of 2023
and WMP(MD).No. 19553 of 2023
A.Selvaraj ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government
Health and Family Welfare Department
Secretariat
Fort St.George
Chennai -6
2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services (ESI)(I/C)
Office of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services (ESI)
Chennai – 6
3.The Superintendent
ESI Hospital
Thathaneri
Madurai 18 .....Respondents
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the entire records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in
Ref.No.17950/ESI/SC/1/2023 dated 15.09.2023 and impugned charge memo
issued by the second respondent in Ref.No.17950/ESI/SC/1/2023-II dated
15.09.2023 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD).No.23364 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by an Administrative Officer of
Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Kilpauk, Chennai challenging the
charge memo issued to him by the second respondent on 15.09.2023 under
Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules.
2.A perusal of the impugned charge reveals that the petitioner while he
was working as an Office Superintendent in the office of Director of Medical
and Rural Health Services (ESI) Chennai has handed over 4 files to one
Mr.T.N.Govindarajan who was an Administrative Officer of the said office.
Even after the said T.N.Govindarajan was transferred and relieved from the
post, it is alleged, that the petitioner has not got back the files from the said
Govindarajan. It is further alleged that the petitioner had failed to obtain the
room key of the Administrative Office from the said Govindarajan after he
was transferred to another office.
3.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, one
Mr.N.Dasarathan, who was working as an Assistant in the Office had
requested the petitioner to handover the above said 4 files to
Mr.T.N.Govindarajan, in view of the fact that both of them were not in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
talking terms. Therefore, only the said N.Dasarathan has to get back the files
from the said T.N.Govindarajan. He had further contended that the said
Govindarajan had retained the room key with him after being transferred on
the ground that he was on a medical leave and he would hand over it on the
subsequent day. Even assuming that there was any misconduct on the part of
the writ petitioner, the charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules are unwarranted and only a show cause notice,
could have been issued under Rule 17(a) especially when there is no
illegal/dishonest or motive for personal vengeance.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further relied upon the
circular issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in
Circular No.14353 dated 11.03.1993 wherein guidelines have been issued by
the Government as to framing of charges. In paragraph No.4 it is stated that
only cases of indiscipline, moral turpitude, corruption, bigamous marriage
unauthorised absence etc. would attract action under Rule 17(b) and in other
cases only a show cause notice could be issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.
5.In the present case when there is no allegation of any illegal or
dishonest motive, the charge memo under Rule 17(b) is liable to be quashed.
He relied upon a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4846 of 2023 (P.Sakthivel
Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another) dated 26.09.2024 to impress
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon the Court that with regard to the above proposition of law.
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents herein, by referring to the counter and the statement recorded
during the preliminary enquiry, had contended that 4 files which were handed
over by writ petitioner to Mr.T.N.Govindarajan relates to inspection report
which contains allegation as against Mr.T.N.Govindarajan himself. Those
files contain communication from the Government for initiating action
against the said Govindarajan. In such circumstances, those files should not
have been handed over to the delinquent officer himself.
7.The learned Government Advocate relying upon the complaint
lodged by the Assistant namely Mr.N.Dasarathan had contended that the said
Dasarathan had given a complaint relating to missing of those files which
were taken by the writ petitioner and handed over to Mr.T.N.Govindarajan.
He had further contended that on being transferred, the said Govindarajan
had carried away all the 4 files and locked his room in the office so that the
enquiry as against him could not be proceeded with. Therefore, the charges
are serious in nature, warranting disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The learned
Government Advocate had further contended that the petitioner had attended
the preliminary enquiry on 06.12.2021 and submitted a statement. However,
no request was made for furnishing of any document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
9.It could be seen from the charge memo that the petitioner has been
charged with the misconduct of handing over 4 files to Mr.T.N.Govindarajan,
who had carried away the said files on his being transferred to a different
institution. It could be further seen that the petitioner is alleged not to have
taken back the key of the room occupied by the said Govindarajan on his
being transferred. Though on the face of it, the allegations seem to be
innocuous in nature, the preliminary enquiry conducted by the department
reveals that the charges as against the petitioner are serious in nature.
10.The 4 files which were handed over by the writ petitioner to
Mr.T.N.Govindarajan relate to the allegation as against the said Govindarajan
himself. The files contain communications received from the Government for
initiating departmental action as against the said Govindarajan. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, on request of the said
Mr.T.N.Govindarajan, he collected the files from Mr.N.Dasarathan and
handed over the same to Govindarajan and he was not aware of the contents
of the file. The said submission would make it clear that the petitioner has
collected the files from Mr.N.Dasarathan only on behalf of the other
delinquent viz.,T.N.Govindarajan. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is not aware of the content of the files is a disputed fact and it could only be
established in the departmental enquiry.
11.It is further brought to the notice of the Court that the other
delinquent Mr.T.N.Govindarajan has taken back the files without returning
the same and locked his office room and he has prevented the enquiry being
initiated as against him. Therefore, the charges as against the petitioner are
not trivial in nature, but are serious in nature warranting issuance of charge
memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules. Therefore, such a contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner is unsustainable.
12.Though the charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in
September 2023, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same only after a
panel was prepared for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer
when the petitioner apprehended that his name would not be included in the
panel. So far the petitioner has not submitted his explanation to the charge
memo. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not
made out a case for setting aside the charge memo.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.01.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government
Health and Family Welfare Department
Secretariat
Fort St.George
Chennai -6
2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services (ESI)(I/C)
Office of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services (ESI)
Chennai – 6
3.The Superintendent
ESI Hospital
Thathaneri
Madurai 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
02.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
