High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.Nos.18517 and 18518 of 2007andMP Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 in WP No.18518/2007andMP No.1 of 2007 in WP No.18517/2007R.Venkatesan .. Petitioner in both petitions vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to theGovernment Home Transport-II Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Special Commissioner andTransport Commissioner Office of Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 600 005... Respondents in both petitions WP No.18517 of 2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for therecords relating to the proceedings made in Proc.R.No.T1/23327/2007(F.O.No.207/07) dated 9.5.2007 passed by the second respondent and quashthe same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitionerto the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I.WP No.18518 of 2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for therecords relating to the proceedings made in Memo R.No.75848/V4/05 dated4.5.2006 passed by the second respondent and quash the same andconsequently forbear the respondents from proceeding with the enquirypursuant to the aforesaid charge memo.For Petitioner: Mr.G.Ethirajuluin both the petitionsFor Respondents: Mr.V.Arunin both petitions Additional GovernmentPleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERThe petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the secondrespondent namely the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner,Madras, made in Proc.R.No.T1/23327/2007 (F.O.No.207/07) dated 9.5.2007 andin Memo R.No.75848/V4/05 dated 4.5.2006, by filing these two writpetitions respectively. He also seeks a direction to the respondents topromote the petitioner to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I andseeks to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry pursuantto the aforesaid charge memo.2.The affidavits in support of the petitions are perused. The Courtheard the learned Counsel on either side. 3.Concededly, the petitioner who was appointed as Motor VehicleInspector Grade-II on 7.12.2000, was working at the Regional TransportOffice, Dharmapuri. During the relevant time, he was working in theOffice of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Salem. He was againtransferred to Motor Vehicle Inspectors Unit Office, Hosur, on 12.11.2005,and he joined duty on 17.11.2005 and was working so. While so, 19.11.2005and 20.11.2005 were holidays, and he went on medical leave from 21.11.2005to 27.11.2005. He joined duty on 28.11.2005. While he was actually onduty that day, there was a surprise inspection made by the Officials ofthe District Cell. Following the same, there was a charge memo issued on4.5.2006, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline andAppeal) Rules, containing three charges. He also put forth his replystating that the contents of the charges were false. Then, the DeputyTransport Commissioner, Salem, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, and itwas conducted on two occasions. But, he retired from service.Thereafter, a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed. Under thecircumstances, these two writ petitions have been brought forth. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in theinstant case, the charges were framed against him for negligence and ofdevotion to duty; that a single allegation was multiplied into threecharges; but, no allegation was made that the petitioner has committedthese irregularities; that further, the charge memo was vague, and itlacks in material particulars; that no direct allegations were made toattract Rule 17(b); that even assuming without admitting that the chargesare true, it would not attract any major punishment; but, it would comeonly under Rule 17(a) of the said Rules; that the first Enquiry Officer,appointed, has also retired; that the second Enquiry Officer has beenappointed; but, they have not taken initiative; that the matter is pendingfor a longtime; that the chance of promotion was also deterred by thependency of the same, and under the circumstances, it has got to bequashed. 5.Contrary to the above contentions, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader would submit that it is true that there was a surpriseinspection where it was found that eight brokers were found inside theOffice; that apart from that, an unaccounted money of Rs.21,165/- wasrecovered from them; that further, an unclaimed amount of Rs.3,370/- was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ found and seized within the Office premises of Motor Vehicle Inspector,Hosur; that there was also a third charge to the effect that there was ashortage in the closing balance; that explanations were given, but notfound to be satisfactory; that the Enquiry Officer was appointed, whoretired; that another Enquiry Officer has been appointed, who has toproceed with the enquiry, and under the circumstances, the writ petitionshave been brought forth. 6.Added further the learned Additional Government Pleader that afterthe explanations were brought forth, it was found that the charges wouldattract only Rule 17 (a) of the said Rules and not 17 (b); that theauthorities had no power to amend the same; that they have placed thematter before the State Government for amending the same; that it isawaited, and under the circumstances, the writ petitions have got to bedismissed permitting the department to proceed with the enquiry of thematter.7.The Court paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 8.It is not in controversy that the petitioner was working as MotorVehicle Inspector, Hosur, during the relevant time. The surpriseinspection, according to the department, was made on 28.11.2005. But, inthe instant case, a charge memo was issued only on 4.5.2006 i.e., nearlyafter a period of six months. It remains to be stated that if theallegations contained in the charges, were true, there could not have beensuch a delay. That apart, the first Enquiry Officer was also appointedafter a period of six months, and he also retired. The second EnquiryOfficer was appointed, and it is pending. Now, at this juncture, it ispertinent to point out that the charges levelled against the petitioner,which are incorporated in the memo, are placed in the hands of the Court.A perusal of the same would indicate that three charges were mentioned.The first charge was that the brokers eight in number, were inside theOffice, and they were also having a money of Rs.21,165/-, which was seizedfrom them. The second charge was that an unclaimed amount of Rs.3,370/-was found and seized within the Office premises of the Motor VehicleInspector, Hosur. The third charge was that there was a shortage ofRs.348/- noticed in the closing cash balance. As far as the charge No.2was concerned, wherefrom Rs.3,370/- was actually seized was not madeknown. Further, it was simply mentioned that it was seized from the MotorVehicle Inspector's Office premises. As regards the third charge, therewas a shortage of Rs.348/- noticed, and it can be attributed only to theCashier and not to the petitioner herein. 9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of theCourt that there were eight brokers inside the office, and it is not clearfrom whom the unaccounted money of Rs.21,165/- was recovered. It ispertinent to point out that as per the guidelines for deciding the chargeunder Rule 17(b), there must be an irregularity or the negligence in thedischarge of the official duty with the dishonest motive. In the case onhand, merely because eight brokers were found inside the office and theywere also found in possession of the unaccounted money of Rs.21,165/-, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Only if there is dishonest motivenoticed, then it could be attributed; but, in this case, it is not so.Under the circumstances, the framing of charges under Rule 17(b) was notat all warranted.10.Now, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit thatafter noticing the explanation, the authorities came to know that thefacts would not attract a charge under Rule 17(b), and they have appliedto the Government for amending the charge as one for Rule 17(a). Thiscontention cannot be accepted since the matter is pending for a longtime.Even assuming that there was a charge under Rule 17(a), no question ofdeterring him from getting further promotion would arise, and it is notwarranted so. Thus, the charges levelled against him, in the opinion ofthis Court, do not stand. This Court is of the view that the charges havegot to be necessarily quashed. That apart, the order of the secondrespondent rejecting the petitioner's claim to be included in the panelfor the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I is also liable to bequashed. Accordingly, they are quashed. The respondents are alsodirected to consider the promotion of the petitioner to which he islegally entitled, taking into consideration that the charges levelledagainst him, have been quashed by this Court as above, in accordance withlaw as expeditiously as practicable. Accordingly, both the writ petitionsare disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.nsv/Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Secretary to the Government Home Transport-II Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Special Commissioner andTransport Commissioner Office of Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. + 2 cc to Mr. G. Ethirajulu, Advocte sR 63018, 63019KU (co)sg 17/10/07WP Nos.18517 and18518 of 2007Dt: 12-10-2007