R. Ramachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28-1-2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.259 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008R. Ramachandran...PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu,rep.by its Secretary to Government,Home (Transport) Department,Secretariat,Chennai - 600 009.2.The Transport Commissioner,Chepauk,Chennai - 600 005....RespondentsPrayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records pertaining to proceedings dated 17.10.2007 inletter No.6634/Tr.II/2007-10 by the first respondent and to quash the sameand to direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner hereinwith all service benefits.For Petitioner: Mr.Abudu Kumar RajaratnamO R D E RThe prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated17.10.2007 in letter No.6634/Tr.II/2007-10 of the first respondent, quashthe same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner inservice with all service benefits.2.At the outset, I would like to point out that the second part ofthe prayer for reinstatement is misconceived as the question ofreinstatement does not arise at all since the petitioner is in service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as MotorVehicle Inspector, Grade-II in the year 1985 as a direct recruit throughTamil Nadu Public Service Commission and he was promoted as Motor VehicleInspector, Grade-I in the year 1991 and presently he is holding the saidpost in the Regional Transport Office, Chennai (North). Petitioner wasissued with a charge memo dated 17.10.2007 alleging that without verifyingthe genuineness of the documents produced for registration of six importedvehicles, petitioner accepted the fabricated documents produced by theImporter and registered the vehicles, which resulted in loss of revenue tothe Government to the tune to Rs.32,252/- by way of Life Time Tax, forlesser value than the actual value. The statement of charges and thestatement of allegations are contained in Annexure I & II, which read asfollows:"Annexure-IStatement of charges framed against Thiru R.Ramachandran, MotorVehicle Inspector, Grade-I, Regional Transport Officer, Chennai(North)When you were working as Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I,Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North), Chennai - 39 duringFebruary-2006, you committed the following irregularities.CHARGE:As per Circular No.1/79 of the Transport Commissioner,Chennai, the records produced for registration of foreignvehicles should be verified for genuineness and whether all therecords prescribed under rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rulesare produced. You have inspected the following illegallyimported six second hand vehicles and accepted fabricateddocuments without proper scrutiny of the registration papers,inspected the vehicles and also certified in Form-20, which isagainst the statutory requirement under rule-47 of CMV Rules,1989 and instructions issued by the Transport Commissioner inCircular 1/79.1.TN 05/R.12552.TN 05/R.27033.TN 05/R.36004.TN 05/R.41535.TN 05/R.78166.TN 05/R.8989You are the competent authority to inspect the vehicle andgrant registration as contemplated under sec.44 of M.V. Act, 1988and solely responsible for the registration of vehicles mentionedin charge-I. You had accepted the fabricated documents producedby the importer without proper verification. Thus your actionhas resulted in loss of revenue to the effect of Rs.32,252/- tothe Government exchequer by way of Life Time Tax assessed based o https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fabricated documents for lesser value than the actual valud ofthe cars.Thus you have failed to maintain absolute integrity anddevotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule20(1) and (2) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules, 1973, and thus conductedyourself in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant.ANNEXURE - IIStatement of allegations namely imputation of misconduct ormisbehaviour in support of the charges framed against ThiruR.Ramachandran, Motor Vehicles Inspector (Non-Technical), Grade-I, Regional Transport Office, Chennai (North)That the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-17 hasinformed in their letter that six second hand cars illegallyimported by one M/s.Sri Vijayalakshmi Auto Centre and others wereregistered in the office of the Regional Transport Officer,Chennai (north), in the name of the importer and other companieswith forged documents. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,Chennai-17 has clearly stated that the illegally importedvehicles were fraudulently registered by submitting thefabricated documents.An application for registration of Motor vehicles should bemade in form No.20 of the CMV Rules, 1989, and has to beaccompanied by the documents prescribed under rule 47(1)(a) to(i) of CMV Rule, 1989. In the case of imported vehicles, customsclearance certificate along with the license and bonds, if anyshall be enclosed.Further, the Regional Transport Officers have been giveninstructions that they should themselves make such enquiries asthey may deem necessary before they approve the re-registrationof imported vehicle wherever there is a reasonable suspicion, asper circular 1/79.If you were careful enough to verify the genuineness of thedocuments produced by the importers while applying forregistration of the illegally imported cars would not have beenregistered and the registration certificates of the six vehicleswould not have been issued.Failure on your part of non scrutinizing the documentsproperly as per Motor Vehicles Act, Rules and Circularinstructions you have caused loss of revenue to the GovernmentExchequer to the tune of Rs.32,252/- in collection of Life TimeTax assessed for lesser value than the actual value of the cars.Hence the charges as found in Annexure-I are framed againstyou."The said charge memo is sought to be quashed in this writ petition bycontending that the statement of allegations even if accepted to be true,does not make out any misconduct and there is discrimination in treatingthe charged officials. The fabricated documents appear like originaldocuments and therefore the petitioner cannot be expected to be an expert https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in identifying the fabricated documents and the proceedings initiatedseparately against the petitioner is contrary to G.O(D)No.1235 HomeDepartment, dated 17.12.2000. Petitioner also contended that quoting ofwrong provision in the charge memo shows the non-application of mind bythe authority concerned.3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused theimpugned charge memo.4.Admittedly no jurisdictional issue with regard to the competencyof the person, who framed the charge memo is raised. Whether themisconduct alleged on the petitioner is made out or not will be known onlywhen the petitioner submits his explanation and after conducting enquiry,if the explanation is not found satisfactory.5.From the typed set of papers it is seen that after receipt ofthe charge memo on 7.11.2007, petitioner sought for the documents whichwere relied on in the charge memo. Petitioner also stated that afterreceiving the said documents, he will submit his written submissions. Hehad opted to have both oral enquiry and personal hearing. The saidsubmission of the petitioner is found in his representation dated7.11.2007, which finds a place at page 30 of the typed set of papers. 6.Petitioner appears to have violated circular No.1/79, dated5.1.1979, which is the basis for issuing the impugned charge memo. In thesaid circular it is stated that it is the duty of the RegisteringAuthority to take all possible steps to verify the genuineness of suchapplications for registration, especially when all the applications arebrought together for registration, for change of address, for issuing NoObjection Certificate, etc. All the Registering Authorities in the Statewere therefore instructed to ensure the genuineness of such documents,especially in regard to the imported cars produced before the Registeringauthorities at the time of applying for registration, etc. so that thesmuggled car could be prevented from getting registered. It is furtherstated that the Regional Transport Officers shall personally verify thedocuments with original documents and should themselves make suchenquiries as may be deemed necessary before they approve the re-registration of imported vehicles, wherever there is reasonable suspicion.Hence a duty is cast upon the petitioner, who is the Regional TransportOfficer, to verify the genuineness of the documents produced.7.From the records, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence foundthat the petitioner has failed in not scrutinising the documents properlyas per the Motor Vehicles Act, Rules, Circulars and instructions, whichhas caused loss of revenue to the Government exchequer.8.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thatcommon proceedings were initiated against one Shanmugasundaram, a copy ofwhich was not given to the petitioner can be answered by directing therespondents to furnish a copy of the same. The further contention thatwrong provision of law is quoted in the impugned charge memo viz., 'Rule20(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules are contravened', though to a certain extent is correct. However,from the reading of the allegations it is beyond doubt that the ruleviolated is Rule 20(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Government ServantsConduct Rules, 1973, and not the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal) Rules, 1973, as referred in the impugned charge memo, whichappears to be a typographical error. Hence though the Rule 20(1) and (2)is correctly mentioned, instead of typing 'Tamil Nadu Government ServantsConduct Rules, 1973', it is wrongly typed as 'Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973'. Wrong quoting of name of the Rulehas not caused any prejudice to the petitioner.9.Hence I am of the view that the impugned charge memo cannot bequashed at the threshold. The petitioner can very well submit hisexplanation for the allegations levelled against him. The scope ofinterference at the charge memo level is admittedly very limited as heldby the Supreme Court in the following decisions:(a)The scope of interference in charge sheet at show cause stage iswell settled in the decision reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of Indiav. Kunisetty Satyanarayana), wherein in paragraphs 13 to 16, the SupremeCourt held thus,"13. It is well settled by a series of decisionsof this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against acharge-sheet or show-cause notice vide ExecutiveEngineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh KumarSingh ((1996)1 SCC 327), Special Director v. Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse ((2004)3 SCC 440), Ulagappa v. DivisionalCommr., Mysore ((2001)10 SCC 639), State of U.P. v.Brahm Datt Sharma ((1987) 2 SCC 179), etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petitionshould not be entertained against a mere show-causenotice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writpetition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to anycause of action, because it does not amount to anadverse order which affects the rights of any partyunless the same has been issued by a person having nojurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that afterconsidering the reply to the show-cause notice or afterholding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop theproceedings and/or hold that the charges are notestablished. It is well settled that a writ petitionlies when some right of any party is infringed. A mereshow-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe theright of anyone. It is only when a final order imposingsome punishment or otherwise adversely affecting aparty is passed, that the said party can be said tohave any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionaryjurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing ashow-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptionalcases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly withoutjurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should notinterfere in such a matter." (b)In the decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 467 (Air India Ltd. v.M. Yogeshwar Raj), in paragraph 8, the Supreme Court held as follows:"8. It appears from a copy of the writ petitionthat the respondent has not questioned the jurisdictionof the disciplinary authority to issue the impugnedshow-cause notice. The two issues of the respondent’scaste and whether he had adequately explained theproduction of the bogus certificate of 4-2-1998 are yetto be decided by the disciplinary authority. Both theissues are primarily issues of fact. The High Courtshould not have pre-empted a factual decision of thedisciplinary authority on the issues . Nor should theHigh Court have stayed the proceedings on a prima faciefinding on the subject-matter of inquiry particularlywhen the competence of the disciplinary authority wasnot in doubt." 10.In view of the above decisions, I am of the firm view that nocase is made out for interference in the impugned charge memo and the writpetition is dismissed in limine. Any observation made in this order shallnot stand in the way of the petitioner in defending the charges in anymanner in the disciplinary proceeding. vrSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department,Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk,Chennai - 600 005.+1 cc to Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.3825.GG(CO)DCP/4.2W.P.No.259 of 2008 & connected MP.