Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the charge memo in Charge Memo No.Nil.2/Go.2153-2/2022 dated 23.12.2022 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner:Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed For Respondents:Mrs. S.AnithaSpecial Government PleaderWP.No.4 of 2023:A.Sevi ...PetitionerVs.1.The Engineer in Chief, WRD,Chief Engineer (General),Public Works Department,Chennai – 600 005.2.The Chief Engineer, WRD,Chennai Region,Public Works Department,Chennai – 600 005.2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 20233.The Superintending Engineer,Public Works Department,Tiruvannamalai – 600 603.4.The Executive Engineer, WRD,Public Works Department,Middle Pennaiyar Basin Division,Tiruvannamalai – 600 603.5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD,Sathanur Dam Sub Division,Sathanur Dam – 606 706. ...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the order in proceedings No.EC2/F.2153/2022 dated 29.11.2022 of the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to retire from services.For Petitioner:Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed For Respondents:Mrs. S.AnithaSpecial Government Pleader3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023WP.No.34988 of 2022:A.Sevi ...PetitionerVs.1.The Engineer in Chief, WRD,Chief Engineer (General),Public Works Department,Chennai – 600 005.2.The Chief Engineer, WRD,Chennai Region,Public Works Department,Chennai – 600 005.3.The Superintending Engineer,Public Works Department,Tiruvannamalai – 600 603.4.The Executive Engineer, WRD,Public Works Department,Middle Pennaiyar Basin Division,Tiruvannamalai – 600 603.5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD,Sathanur Dam Sub Division,Sathanur Dam – 606 706. ...Respondents4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records relating to the order in proceedings No.EC2/F.2153/2022 dated 30.11.2022 of the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to retire from services.For Petitioner:Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed For Respondents:Mrs. S.AnithaSpecial Government PleaderO R D E R These writ petitions have been filed for the following relief:“call for the records relating to the charge memo in Charge Memo No.Nil.2/Go.2153-2/2022 dated 23.12.2022 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same”.“call for the records relating to the order in proceedings No.EC2/F.2153/2022 dated 29.11.2022 of the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to retire 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023from services”.“call for the records relating to the order in proceedings No.EC2/F.2153/2022 dated 30.11.2022 of the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to retire from services”. 2. Since the facts are common in all the three writ petitions, the facts set out in WP.No.1010 of 2023 is set out herein below. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of PWD – WRD Department at Sathanoor Dam, in the year 1979 as Mazdoor and his service along with services of 1000 others were regularised by the Government Order dated 19.10.2007. His services were regularised taking into account the fact that he had put in more than 28 years of service as NMR. Proposals were sent for regularisation only knowing fully well that the petitioner had studied upto 4th std and appeared as a private candidate for 8th std examination in the year 1987. On the basis of this proposal, regularisation had been given. 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 20234. After regularisation, the respondents directed the petitioner to produce school certificate, which is also produced by the petitioner. It appears that the respondents had obtained the report from the Head Master of the School stating that date of birth given by the petitioner did not match and there was a difference of 11 days. 5. On the basis of the above report, without putting the petitioner on notice, his services were terminated by the 2nd respondent by order dated 04.07.2008. This order of termination came to be challenged by the petitioner in WP.No.14328 of 2009, by order dated 05.08.2009, this writ petition along with other writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons were allowed and the termination was set aside. 6. Challenging the said order, the respondents had preferred appeals in WA.Nos.1579 to 1582 of 2009 and the appeals were also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service by proceedings dated 29.01.2010. On 25.03.2010, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo and the petitioner had submitted explanation on 7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 202313.04.2010. Thereafter, by order dated 30.04.2010, the 1st respondent discharged and absolved the petitioner of the charges and issued warning. The said issue had become final and the petitioner continued in service. He was also promoted to the post of a Work Inspector. 7. While so, when the petitioner was due to retire on 30.11.2022, he was served with an order dated 29.11.2022, suspending him from service stating that enquiry against him is contemplated in respect of charges of producing bogus educational certificate for regularisation. That apart, the petitioner was not allowed to retire by order of the 1st respondent under Rule 56 (1) (c) of the Fundamental Rules. Thereafter, he was also issued with a charge memo on 23.12.2022. 8. The petitioner’s contention is that the charge is identical to the earlier charge. It is his further contention that after a detailed enquiry, the petitioner has been discharged and once again based on the very same charges, the present charge memo has been filed. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 20239. A common counter affidavit has been filed in which once again it is stated that the petitioner has been regularised on the basis of bogus certificate. Therefore, his regularisation was wrong. The respondents would contend that there was no bar for the higher officer to review the disciplinary cases decided at a lower level. Their contention is that the present impugned order is only a review of the earlier order. Therefore, these writ petitions are not sustainable. 10. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.11. The contention of the respondents that the 1st respondent as superior only reviewed the order is totally absurd. The order dated 30.04.2010, discharging the petitioner from the charge has been passed by the 1st respondent himself, which is evident from a perusal of the proceedings dated 30.04.2010. 12. Charges framed in the earlier charge memo dated 25.03.2010, are as follows:9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023“Fw;wr;rhl;L 1jtwhd jfty; mspj;J nkhroahf gzpapy; nru;e;jikf;F ,tu;kPJ Vd; Fw;wtpay; eltof;if vLf;ff;TlhJ vd;Wk; ,tiu Vd; gzpapy; ,Ue;J gzp ePf;fk; bra;af;TlhJ vd;gjw;Fk; cupa tpsf;fk; mspf;Fk;go nfhug;gLfpwJ/Fw;wr;rhl;L 2nkhroahd jfty; je;j ,tu; muRf;F cz;ikahf ,Ug;ghu; vd;gjw;Fk; muR Mtz';fspy; kPz;Lk; ,t;thW jpUj;jk; bra;akhl;lhu; vd;gjw;Fk; vd;d cWjp vd;W cupa tpsf;fk; mspf;FkhW nfhug;gLfpwJ.Fw;wr;rhl;L 3,e;j khjpup nkhro eltof;iffspy;’<LgLk;;’,tu;’muRf;F vt;thW cz;ikahf ,Ug;ghu;’vd;gjw;F cupa tpsf;fk; mspf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhu;/ 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 202313. The charges that are now framed as follows:“Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 1jpU/ m/nrtp gzp Ma;thsu; (j/g/eP) vd;gtu;’nghypahd Mtz';fis rku;g;gpj;J muRg;gzpapy; nru;e;jpUg;gJ ed;F g[ydhfpwJ/ mtupd; ,r;bray;. muir Vkhw;wpaJ kl;Lky;yhJ. jkpH;ehL bghwpapay; rhu;gzpj; bjhFjp tpjpfSf;F vjpuhdjhft[k; cs;sJ/Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 2jpU/ m/nrtp gzp Ma;thsu; (j/g/eP) vd;gtu; gzpapy; nrUk; bghUl;L rku;g;gpj;j nru;f;if vz;/345 vd;w rhd;wpjH; Kw;wpYk; nghypahd rhd;wpjH; vd cWjp bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 3jpU/ m/nrtp gzp Ma;thsu; (j/g/eP) vd;gtupd; gpwe;j njup 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 202322/10/1962 vd;gjw;F gjpyhf 03/11/1962 vd;J jpUj;jk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ cWjp bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mtUila ,r;bray; tpjpfSf;F vjpuhdjhf cs;snjhL. Murpid Vkhw;Wk; nehf;fk; xU Fw;wkhFk;/Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 4jpU/ m/nrtp gzp Ma;thsu; (j/g/eP) vd;gtu; ,e;jpa murpayikg;g[‘rl;;lj;jpw;F g[wk;ghf. nghypahd Mtz';fis mspj;J muRg;gzpapy; nru;e;Js;shu;/ jpU/ m/nrtp gzp Ma;thsu; (j/g/eP) njrg;gw;Wk; kw;Wk;’gzpapy;’neu;ikapd;ika[k;’nkw;Twpa Fw;wr;rhl;LfspypUe;J cWjpahfpwJ/14. A mere comparison of these two charge memos clearly show that the second charge memo which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is nothing but a very same charge couched in different 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023language. 15. After a detailed enquiry, the 1st respondent has passed the following order on 30.04.2010:“ghu;it 2y; fz;l cjtpbraw;bghwpahsu; mtu;fspd; gupe;Jiuia Vw;W ,tuJ bray; ,Jnt Kjy; Kiw vd;gjhy;. ,Jnt KjYk;;’filrp Kiw vd;W vr;ru;fpifapld;’,tu;’Fw;wr;rhl;Lfspy;’ ,Ue;J tpLtpf;fg;gLfpwhu;/ ,dp tU';fhy';fspy; ,Jnghd;w jtWfs;’VJk; bra;ahky; gzpapy; ftdkhf ,Uf;FkhW ,tu; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhu;/ 16. Having accepted the explanation of the petitioner and the documents submitted by him, the very same authority had decided to discharge the petitioner from the charge and had only issued a warning. 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 202317. That being the case, the very same authority now headed by some other person cannot once again re-open the charges which are already been enquired into and orders passed. 18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.11.2022, 30.11.2022 and 23.12.2022 are quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 02.12.2025 Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/Nokan14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023To1.The Engineer in Chief, WRD,Chief Engineer (General),Public Works Department,Chennai – 600 005.2.The Chief Engineer, WRD,Chennai Region,Public Works Department,Chennai – 600 005.3.The Superintending Engineer,Public Works Department,Tiruvannamalai – 600 603.4.The Executive Engineer, WRD,Public Works Department,Middle Pennaiyar Basin Division,Tiruvannamalai – 600 603.5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD,Sathanur Dam Sub Division,Sathanur Dam – 606 706.15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023P.T. ASHA, J kanW.P.No.1010 & 4 of 2023 &W.P.No.34988 of 202216/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1010 & 4 of 202302.12.202517/17