Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.13940 of 2010ORDERThe relief sought in this Writ Petition is to quash the Charge Memo dated 31.12.2008 bearing Na.Ka.No.16760/2008/MC2 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Charge Memo”) and Suspension Order dated 12.12.2008 bearing Na.Ka.No.16760/2008/MC2 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) issued by the 1st Respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as a 'Secondary Grade Teacher' in the Respondent Corporation on 12.07.1988. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted as 'Tamil Pandit' by the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings dated 20.12.2004 bearing Na.Ka.No.1436/03/K9 and was posted in the Coimbatore Corporation Middle School at Sanganoor. 3. While so, the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings dated 12.12.2008 bearing Na.Ka.No.16760/08/MC2, suspended the Petitioner from service, pursuant to which, the Petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated 31.12.2008 bearing Na.Ka.No.16760/08/MC2. The charges framed against 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010the Petitioner in the Charge Memo dated 31.12.2008 are extracted hereunder:“Fw;wr;rhl;L?1jpU/nfh/nf/Mde;jf;Fkhh;. jkpHhrphpah;. jiyik Mrphpah; (bgh) khefuhl;rp eLepiyg; gs;sp. r';fD}h; Mfpa jh';fs; gs;sp eyDf;fhf ed;bfhilahf tNy; bra;jjhff; Twp gzj;ij t';fpapy; brYj;jhky; ifahly; bra;Jk;. gs;spf; fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F xg;ge;jf;fhuh; jpU/gp/bts;isr;rhkp mth;fSf;F U:/2/80 yl;rk; ifapypUe;J bfhLj;jjhf bgha;ahd fzf;F fhz;gpj;J jkpH;ehL muR gzpahsh; tpjpfSf;F g[wk;ghf bray;gl;Ls;sPh;/Fw;wr;rhl;L ? 2jpU/nfh/nfh/Mde;jf;Fkhh;. jkpHhrphpah;. jiyik Mrphpah; (bgh) khefuhl;rp eLepiyg; gs;sp. r';fD}h; Mfpa jh';fs; jkpH;ehL murhy; ,ytrkhf tH';fg;gLk; rPUil kw;Wk; nehl;L g[j;jf';fSf;F j';fs; gs;spapy; gof;Fk; khzt khztpahplk; y";rkhf gzk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;sPh;/ nkw;fz;l brayhy; bghJ kf;fsplk; ,k;khefuhl;rpf;F mtg;bgah; Vw;glf; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;sPh;/Fw;wr;rhl;L ? 3jpU/nfh/nfh/Mde;jf;Fkhh;. jkpHhrphpah;. jiyik Mrphpah; (bgh) khefuhl;rp eLepiyg; gs;sp. r';fD}h; Mfpa jh';fs; SSA K:yk; ,uz;L tFg;giwfs; fl;Ltjw;F murhy; epjp tH';fg;gl;oUe;Jk; j';fs; gs;spapy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk; Mrphpah; kw;Wk; Mrphpah; gapw;rp bgWnthhplk; fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F vd;W jyh U:/1000 vd fl;lhag;gLj;jp tNy; bra;Js;sPh;/ gzk; ju kWj;jjhy; mth;fis gHpth';fptpLntd; vd kpul;o jh';fs; j';fsJ gjtpia Jcw;gpunahfk; bra;Js;sPh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L ? 4 jpU/nfh/nfh/Mde;jf;Fkhh;. jkpHhrphpah;. jiyik Mrphpah; (bgh) khefuhl;rp eLepiyg; gs;sp. r';fD}h; Mfpa jh';fs; gs;spapy; gof;Fk; khzt khztpahpd; rPUil Kiwia khw;wpa[k;. ,jw;fhd cah; mjpfhhpfspd; cj;jput[ VJk; bgwg;glhkYk;. rPUil tH';Ftjw;fhf khzt khztpahplk; gzk; tNy; bra;Js;sPh;/ ,r;brayhy;. jh';fs; eph;thfj;jpd; mDkjpapd;wp jd;dpr;irahf bray;gl;L jdJ bghWg;g[ kw;Wk; flikfspypUe;Jk; jtwpa[s;sPh;/3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010Fw;wr;rhl;L ? 5 jpU/nfh/nfh/Mde;jf;Fkhh;. jkpHhrphpah;. jiyik Mrphpah; (bgh) khefuhl;rp eLepiyg; gs;sp. r';fD}h; Mfpa jh';fs; gs;spapy; gof;Fk; mUe;jjpah; FHe;ijfsplk; gs;sp ntiyfs;. ghj;U:k; kw;Wk; j';fSila fhh; Rj;jk; bra;a[k; ntiyfis bra;a[khWk; Twp muR tpjpfSf;Fg; g[wk;ghf bray;gl;Ls;sPh;/”4. In response to the Charge Memo dated 31.12.2008, the Petitioner submitted his detailed Explanation dated 13.01.2009 before the 1st Respondent. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Report was filed. Based on the Enquiry Report, the 1st Respondent vide Order dated 16.03.2009 bearing ROC.No.16760/2008/MC2, dismissed the Petitioner from service. 5. Challenging the Order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4958 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 26.08.2009. Operative portion of the Order dated 26.08.2009 in W.P.No.4958 of 2009 is extracted hereunder:“5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms:(i) The report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the final order passed by the first respondent are set aside;(ii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent who shall appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer who shall hold the enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Law after affording sufficient 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and to let in evidence on his side, both oral and documentary;(iii) Based on the said report to be submitted by the Enquiry Officer, after affording sufficient opportunity, the first respondent shall pass appropriate final order in this matter. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”6. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order of this Court, the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings dated 14.10.2009 bearing ROC.No.16760/08/K7(MC2), appointed the 2nd Respondent as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner. Further, the 1st Respondent appointed one Mr.M.Sundarrajan, Council Secretary of Coimbatore Corporation as Presenting Officer to present the case before the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer. 7. The Petitioner submitted a Representation dated 22.10.2009 to the 1st Respondent, requesting to furnish a copy of all the documents relied upon by the 1st Respondent for framing the charges against the Petitioner, for submitting the Defence Statement. However, the 1st Respondent did not respond to the Petitioner's Representation.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 20108. Under these circumstances, the 2nd Respondent vide Letter dated 09.11.2009, called upon the Petitioner to appear for enquiry on 11.11.2009, pursuant to which, the Petitioner appeared for enquiry on the said date. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent vide Letter dated 12.11.2009, directed the Petitioner to peruse the records on 17.11.2009 before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the Petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 17.11.2009. However, the 2nd Respondent did not produce any documents for the perusal of Petitioner.9. Once again, the 2nd Respondent vide Communication dated 19.11.2009, directed the Petitioner to appear on 23.11.2009 for perusing the records. Accordingly, the Petitioner appeared before the 2nd Respondent on 23.11.2009 and perused the records produced by the 2nd Respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent vide Letter dated 27.11.2009, directed the Petitioner to submit the Defence Statement. 10. The Petitioner vide Letter dated 07.12.2009, requested the 1st Respondent to furnish the records based on which charges were framed against the Petitioner since the records produced by the 2nd Respondent 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010were not relevant to the charges framed against the Petitioner. However, the 1st Respondent did not furnish any records to the Petitioner.11. In this situation, the Petitioner submitted his Defence Statement dated 31.12.2009 before the 1st Respondent, but, the 2nd Respondent had alleged that the Petitioner did not submit the Defence Statement. Further, the 2nd Respondent vide Letters dated 19.01.2010, called upon the Petitioner to appear for enquiry on 22.01.2010. Accordingly, the Petitioner appeared for enquiry before the 2nd Respondent on 22.01.2010, but, on the said date, the 2nd Respondent did not conduct any enquiry. 12. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent vide Letter dated 22.01.2010, directed the Petitioner to appear before the 2nd Respondent on 25.01.2010. However, the Petitioner did not appear before the 2nd Respondent on the said date. Under these circumstances, left with no other alternative, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the time limit fixed by this Court in Order dated 26.08.2009 in W.P.No.4958 of 2009 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010did not make the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 31.12.2008 stand lapsed. In this connection, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the decisions rendered by this Court in following cases:(i) Dr.N.Shahida Begum Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Order dated 28.03.2006 in W.P.No.36490 of 2005) (ii) B.Krishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Anr. (Order dated 19.03.2008 in W.P.No.3828 of 2002)13.1. That apart, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the 1st Respondent did not furnish any documents to the Petitioner. It is also submitted that during the enquiry, no witnesses were examined, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross-examine any witnesses and no documents were marked as exhibits in the presence of the Petitioner. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner had deliberately failed to participate in the enquiry to cross-examine the witnesses. It is also submitted that despite repeated opportunities, the Petitioner did not come forward to cross-examine the witnesses.8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 201014.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that during the course of enquiry, 33 witnesses were examined and the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report before the 1st Respondent on 09.06.2010. A copy of the Enquiry Report was also communicated to the Petitioner on 29.07.2010. It is submitted that when the Petitioner came to know about the submission of Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 24.06.2010.14.2. The learned counsel for the Respondents also submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 26.08.2009 in W.P.No.4958 of 2009 of this Court, 1st Respondent appointed the 2nd Respondent as Enquiry Officer and one Mr.M.Sundarrajan, Council Secretary of Coimbatore Corporation as Presenting Officer, immediately thereafter, the Petitioner vide Representation dated 22.10.2009, requested the 1st Respondent to furnish him a copy of 7 set of documents for submitting the Defence Statement. 14.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the 2nd Respondent vide Letter dated 09.11.2009, called upon the Petitioner 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010to appear for enquiry on 11.11.2009 and also, informed the Petitioner that he can peruse the enquiry documents and the copies of the required documents will also be furnished to him.14.4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that despite the Petitioner being furnished with all the required documents, the Petitioner failed to co-operate with the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer and hence, the enquiry was delayed. It is submitted that since the Petitioner did not come forward to cross-examine any of the witnesses, the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer vide Memo dated 30.03.2010, informed the Petitioner that enquiry against the Petitioner is concluded.14.5. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that as per the Order dated 26.08.2009 in W.P.No.4958 of 2009 passed by this Court, a fresh enquiry was conducted and the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer had held in the Enquiry Report that out of the 5 charges framed against the Petitioner, Charge Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 were proved and Charge No.4 was partly proved. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 201015. In Reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without furnishing any documentary evidences to the Petitioner, the Respondents have unnecessarily harassed the Petitioner in the name of enquiry. It is also submitted that though the Petitioner was placed under suspension, the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings dated 16.12.2011 bearing Na.Ka.No.16760/2008/K13 (M.C.2), reinstated the Petitioner in service and since then, the Petitioner has been continued to discharge his duty. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed this Court to allow this Writ Petition.16. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.17. In the present case, the Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 1st Respondent vide Order dated 16.03.2009. Challenging the said Order of Dismissal, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4958 of 2009. This Court vide Order dated 26.08.2009, allowed the said Writ Petition and set aside the Order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent. 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 201018. A certified copy of the aforesaid Order of this Court was received by the Petitioner during the 1st week of September, 2009 and the said copy was communicated to the 1st Respondent on 10.09.2009. 19. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Order dated 26.08.2009 in W.P.No.4958 of 2009, the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings dated 14.10.2009, appointed the 2nd Respondent as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner and further, appointed one Mr.M.Sundarrajan, Council Secretary of Coimbatore Corporation as Presenting Officer to present the case before the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer. 20. The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent indicates that the Petitioner did not co-operate with the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer during the enquiry, as a result of which, the enquiry was delayed and hence, the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer vide Memo dated 30.03.2010, informed the Petitioner that the enquiry was concluded. It also indicates that when the Petitioner came to know that the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer filed the Enquiry Report on 09.06.2010, the 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010Petitioner immediately rushed to the Court and filed this Writ Petition. 21. As far as this case is concerned, marginal delay, if any, in completing the enquiry cannot be attributed to the Respondents rather the Petitioner was responsible for the said delay. Similarly, pendency of this Writ Petition is also attributed to the Petitioner because this Writ Petition was admitted as early as on 29.07.2010. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge to the Impugned Charge Memo dated 31.12.2008 as well as the Impugned Suspension Order dated 12.12.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent.22. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is needless to state that the Petitioner shall co-operate with the Respondents in the disciplinary proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 13.03.2025mrrIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010To1.Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Coimbatore – 641 001.2.Deputy Commissioner/Enquiry Officer, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore – 641 001.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13940 of 2010C.SARAVANAN, J.mrrW.P.No.13940 of 201013.03.202515/15