State of Tamil Nadu v. C.Krishnan

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 5.1.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANWrit Appeal No.912 of 20081. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Home Transport-II Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Transport Commissioner O/o. Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 600 005...Appellants/RespondentsVs.C.Krishnan..Respondent/Petitioner-----Appeal filed U/clause 15 of the letters patent against the orderof the learned single Judge dated 3.9.2007 made in W.P.No.16904 of2007.WP 16904/2007: Writ Petition praying to issue a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to theproceedings made in memo R.No.75848/V4/05 dated 4.5.2006 passed by thesecond respondent and qush the same and consequently forbear therespondents from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuant to theaforesaid charge memo.-----For Appellants : Mr.Raja Kalifullah, G.P.For Respondent : Mr.Mr.G.Ethirajulu-----J U D G M E N T(Delivered by The Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)The respondent, who was Superintendent of Unit Office, RegionalTransport Office, was proceeded departmentally vide charge sheet in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Memo R.No.75848/V4/05 dated 4.5.2006. He challenged the same ondifferent grounds including the ground that no case has been madeout under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline andAppeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). 2. The learned Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 3.9.2007,having noticed the charge sheet, held that no dishonest motive hasbeen noticed in the charge sheet and even though irregularity ornegligence was alleged in the charge sheet, no question of framingcharges under Rule 17(b) would arise and in the facts andcircumstances, the alleged charges would attract only Rule 17(a) ofthe Rules and directed the competent authority to proceed under Rule17(a) of the Rules, instead of Rule 17(b) of the Rules. Havingnoticed that the employee was to retire in the month of February 2008,the Department was also directed to consider the case of the employeefor promotion also. Against the aforesaid judgment, the Department(State) has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Departmentsubmitted that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, has no jurisdiction to alter the charges framed under aparticular provision of law to that of another law.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(employee) submitted that the Court should not interfere with thejudgment, as the employee was allowed to retire from services of theState without any objection. He also relied upon the charge memodated 4.5.2006 to suggest that no charge was made out under Rule 17(b)of the Rules.5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticedthe rival contention and also perused the records.6. It is true that this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, has no jurisdiction to give a finding as tocharge should be framed under which provision of law. Therefore, weare of the opinion that the finding of the learned Judge, as made bythe impugned judgment dated 3.9.2007 and directing the appellants toframe the charge under Rule 17(a) of the Rules, are not proper.7. Now the question arises as to whether the proceedings underRule 17(b) of the Rules should be revived, by remitting matter to theappellant, since the employee has been retired from service.8.1. From the records as contained in Annexure-I, we find thatthe following charges have been levelled. "Charge-I:Thiru C.Krishnan, Superintendent, Unit Office, Hozur https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowed 8 brokers inside the office premises viz. 1)Manoharan 2) Jayabalan 3)Ravi Chandra Reddy 4)V.Radharajulu, 5) Balakrishnan 6)Devarajan 7)C.Senthilkumar 8)N.Manjunatha Reddy unwontedly and seizedunaccounted money of Rs.21,165/- from them.Charge-II:An unclaimed amount of Rs.3,370/- was found andseized within the office premises of office of MotorVehicle Inspector, Hozur.Charge-III:A shortage of Rs.348/- was noticed in the closingcash balance."8.2. The imputation of charges, as found in Annexure-II, reads asunder: "That the said Thiru.C.Krishnan, while working asSuperintendent Unit Office, Hozur under the control ofRegional Transport Officer, Krishnagiri, a surprise checkwas conducted on 29.11.2005 by the appropriateauthorities and District Inspection Cell Officers andfound some irregularities. Hence the charges as found inAnnexure-I are framed against him."8.3. The list of documents, as contained in Annexure-III, refersto a report on the result of surprise check conducted on 29.11.2005 bythe Officers of appropriate authorities and District Inspection CellOfficers Unit Office, Hozur. 8.4. Annexure-IV contains the list of witnesses by whom thecharges have been framed, with the names of three persons, includingthe Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,Krishnagiri, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption ,Krishnagiri and Cell Inspector, Inspection Cell Office, Collectorate9. From a perusal of the charge sheet, as contained in Annexure-Iand quoted above, it would be evident that vague charges have beenlevelled. Though in charge No.1, it is alleged that the respondentemployee allowed eight persons inside the office premises unwontedlyand seized unaccounted amount of Rs.21,165/- from them, it has notbeen mentioned as to how it constituted any charge against theemployee. If the amount has been recovered from eight other persons,no evidence is enclosed to show that he allowed the persons inside theoffice premises and the amount seized from the said eight persons wasmeant for some purpose other than the official purpose. It is not the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case that the amount, which was seized from those eight persons,belong to the State Government or the said amount was brought by themto bribe the employee or any other person. 10. The second charge relates to the unclaimed amount ofRs.3,370/- found and seized within the office premises of the officeof the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Hosur. But, it is not clear as to howthe employee is connected with the same. 11. Similarly, with regard to charge no.3, which talks ofshortage of Rs.348/- noticed in the closing balance, it has not beenmentioned as to whether the cash balance was maintained by theemployee and shortage was found in it.12. As the charges are vague, as also the imputation of charge ascontained in Annexure-II and quoted above, and that employee hasalready been allowed by the State Government to retire from services,we are of the view that it is not a proper case to remit the matterfor enquiry with regard to the vague charges. In that view of thematter, we set aside the part of the finding and direction of thelearned single Judge dated 3.9.2007, whereby direction was issued toproceed with the enquiry, after framing charges under Rule 17(a), butupheld the order so far as it relates to the setting aside the chargememo dated 4.5.2006. The order of the learned single Judge dated3.9.2007 stands modified to the above extent. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaidobservation. But, there shall be no order as to costs. M.P.No.1 of2008 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkplTo1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Transport-II Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Transport Commissioner O/o. Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.+1cc to Mr.G.Ethirajulu, Advocate Sr 92+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 188GV (CO)km/21.1.W.A.No.912 of 2008.