AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Though the writ petition was listed for considering the petition filed by the Respondent for vacating the stay order, in view of the fact that for considering the question of stay or vacating the stay, the entire writ petition is required to be heard, by the consent of counsel on either side, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
The writ Petitioner is employed under the Respondent. He had filed W.P. No. 1170 and 1470 of 1992 against the orders dated 1st April 1991, passed by the Collector, cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 7th February, 2001 has been issued to the Petitioner. The averment in the show cause notice is contained in para 5 and 6 of the said notice is as follows:
AND WHEREAS you had filed two Writ Petitions in the Chennai High Court during the year 1992 but in contravention of Service Rules failed to inform your Office details thereof.
AND WHEREAS you further failed to inform your office the dismissal of your above Writ Petitions by the Chennai High Court whereby orders of Collector of Salem cancelling caste certificate issued to you were upheld.
It is obvious that the Respondent in seeking to take action against the Petitioner for having filed the Writ Petition and having failed to inform the office regarding the details of the Writ Petition and regarding the dismissal of it. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance upon Coast Guard (General) Rules, particularly relying on Rule 32 to the following effect:
Complaints to Higher authorities. (1) If an officer or an enrolled person thinks that he has suffered any personal oppression, injustice, or other ill treatment or that he has been treated unjustly in any way or wishes to make a representation affecting his welfare or has any suggestion to make in connection with service, he shall bring it to the notice of his superior officer.
It shall be the duty of the superior officer to whom a representation has been given, to forward the same to the higher authorities for appropriate action.
Any other method of seeking redressal from the superior officer/authority save those mentioned in those mentioned in these rules is forbidden.
It has been contended that in view of Rule 32, particularly Sub-rule 3. which prohibits any other method of seeking redressal from the superior officers, the action of the Petitioner amounts to misconduct. In this context, it is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner was duty bound to inform the result of the Writ Petition to the Respondents.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 1681 (Air India v. M. Yogeslnvar Raj) in support of the contention that writ should not be entertained against a notice to show cause, as the matter could be decided by the departmental authorities after enquiry.
Rule 32, which has been relied upon by the Respondents does not prohibit the employee from seeking redressal from a competent court without taking the prior permission of the superior authority or the departmental authority. In fact, the right to approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is a Constitutional right available to a person including the employee. Merely because an aggrieved employee enters the portals of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot be constituted as a ground for punishing such employee. Nothing would be more abhorrent to a civilised society. The Respondents without justification have issued notice to the Petitioner to show cause (sic) mainly because he had approached the High Court without intimating the disciplinary authorities.
Similarly, the contention that it was the obligation of the Petitioner to inform the departmental authorities regarding the result of the Writ Petition is equally untenable. It is not the case of the department that the Petitioner had tried to stall any proceeding before the department by not intimating about the pendency of the Writ Petition. As such, there was no obligation on the part of the Petitioner to inform about the result of the Writ Petition.
The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is not applicable to the present case. In the said matter, the department proceedings depended on certain questions of facts which were to be required to be inquired into. But in the present case there is no disputed questions of fact to be enquired into but the only question is whether the filing of the Writ Petition and non informing of the result of the Writ Petition is a misconduct as per the rules of the Respondents.
In view of the aforesaid reason, I allow the Writ Petition and quash the show cause. It is however made clear that it would be open to the authorities to initiate any proper proceeding on the basis that the caste certificate granted in favour of the Petitioner which has been subsequently cancelled by the competent authority.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a writ appeal has been filed and it is admitted. It is made clear that if any order of stay is passed by the appellate court, obviously the departmental authorities have to stay their hands. On the other hand, if no stay is granted, it would be open for the Respondents to proceed in accordance with law and the quashing of the proceeding by this Court will not stand in the way. The Writ Petition is allowed. Thereby, WMP No. 9542 of 2001 and WVMP No. 36808 of 2001 are closed.