ANDM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007 v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.09.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.16904 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007C.Krishnan.. PetitionerVs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home Transport-II Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

The Transport Commissioner, O/o.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus for the relief as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.G.EthirajuluFor Respondents: Mr.I.Paranthaman, AGPORDERSeeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedingsmade in Memo R.No.75848/V4/05, dated 4.5.2006 passed by the secondrespondent and also to forbear the respondents from proceeding with theenquiry in pursuant to the aforesaid charge memo, this writ petition hasbeen brought forth by the petitioner, who is the Superintendent attachedto the Transport Department, Tamil Nadu. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petitioncould be stated thus: The petitioner, who was originally appointed as the Junior Assistantin the year 1986, was promoted as the Superintendent from 13.3.2002 and hewas posted at Motor Vehicle Inspector Office, Hosur. While he was doingso, on 28.11.2005, there was a surprise inspection by the higher-ups andcertain irregularities were noticed and a charge memo was also issued. TheEnquiry Officer was appointed and that Enquiry Officer retired in themonth of February, 2007 and yet, no one was appointed as Enquiry Officerand the matter is pending and it has not proceeded with and hence, all thepromotions have become delayed. Further, the charges found in the charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ memo did not attract anything to be proceeded under Rule 17(b) andfurther, no major punishment could be awarded and under thesecircumstances, it would come only under Rule 17(a) and for the reasonsknown to the department, nobody was appointed as the Enquiry Officer andthe matter is pending yet. The petitioner is due to attain superannuationin the month of February, 2008. Under these circumstances, theproceedings have got to be quashed.

The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingto him, the Enquiry Officer is to be appointed. This charge memo wasissued only on 4.5.2006 and due to the retirement of the Enquiry Officer,a new one has got to be appointed, which has got to be done shortly by thedepartment. Apart from that, even a reading of the charges found in thememo would clearly indicate that they are rightly framed under Rule 17(b)and there is no question of attracting Rule 17(a), in view of the factualposition that arise. Under these circumstances, the writ petition has gotto be dismissed.

The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissionsmade.

It is not in controversy that the petitioner herein is the Superintendent attached to the Motor Vehicle Inspector Office, Hosur. There was a surprise inspection made on 28.11.2005. It is pertinent topoint out that though the inspection was made in the month of November,2005, charge memo was issued on 4.5.2006. At this juncture, it is to befurther pointed out that the Enquiry Officer was appointed earlier and healso retired in the month of February, 2007. Under these circumstances, noone is yet appointed as the Enquiry Officer for the past 6 months. Thecourt is unable to see any reason as to why no one was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and why the matter is pending for the past two years onthe charge memo, while the inspection was made on 28.11.2005, the chargememo was issued on 4.5.2006 and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer retired inthe month of February, 2007.

Apart from that, in the instant case, the charges levelled againstthe petitioner, which are incorporated in the memo, are placed in thehands of the court and they are noticed by the court. There were threecharges. Insofar as the first charge, according to the department, eightbrokers were found inside the office and they were also having money ofRs.21,165/-, which was seized from them. The second charge was that anunclaimed amount of Rs.3370/- was found and seized within the officepremises of motor Vehicle Inspector, Hosur and the third charge was thatthere was shortage of Rs.348/- noticed in the closing cash balance. So faras the charge No.2 was concerned, wherefrom Rs.3370/- was actually seizedis not made known and it was mentioned that it was seized within the MotorVehicle Inspector office. So far as the third charge was concerned, therewas shortage of Rs.348/- noticed and it can be attributed only to the Cashier.

According to the learned counsel for the State, there were eightbrokers inside the office and from whom, an unaccounted money for a sum ofRs.21,165/- was recovered. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point outthat as per the guidelines for deciding the charges framed under Rule 17(b), there is irregularity or negligence in the discharge of officialduties with a dishonest motive. In the instant case, what are all stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was only eight brokers were found inside the office and from whom theamount was recovered. Now, the question would be whether there was anydishonest motive, which could be attributed. The court is of theconsidered opinion that so long as any dishonest motive is not noticed, even though there was irregularity or negligence spoken out, no questionof framing charges under Rule 17(b) would arise. Thus, the charges, whatwere found above, were not factually available to frame charges under Rule17(b). Under these circumstances, it would attract Rule 17(a) only.