AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner is a night Watchman in the Sub-Registrar Office, Santhiamangalam, Gingee Taluk. Subsequently, he
was transferred to serve in the same capacity of night watchman in the Sub-Registrar office at Anandapuram. In the year 1992, he was promoted
as Office Assistant and transferred to Sub-Registrar Office at Tiruvannamalai. He served as Office Assistant in Sub-Registrar Office in Valavanam
and thereafter, he was transferred to Kandamangalam.
While so, he was issued with a charge memo dated 08.03.2013 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. The allegation
against the petitioner is that he willfully turned hostile and made a statement in favour of Mrs. N. Jayalakshmi, Sub-Registrar and Mr. K.
Arumugam (Retired Sub-Registrar), with a view to save them from being prosecuted. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the
aforesaid charge memo dated 08.03.2013.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already submitted his explanation dated 09.04.2013 stating that he
did not make any statement to save the higher officials. He prayed that the charge memo has to be quashed.
On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that after having submitted his explanation, the petitioner should have
waited for further proceedings from the authority. Instead, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and has filed the present writ petition. The learned
Special Government Pleader further submitted that it is pre-matured to challenge the charge memo even before the authority concerned considered
the explanation and decide as to whether enquiry is necessary or not. In support of his contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied
on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, .
As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner has rushed to this Court after submitting his explanation to the
charge memo without even waiting for the decision to be taken by the authority.
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana,
, relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader. In paragraphs, 13 to 16, the Supreme Court held as follows:--
It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr.,
Mysore, State of U.P. V. Brahm Datt Sharma etc.
The reason why ordinarily a Writ Petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge sheet is that at that stage the
Writ Petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does
not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It
is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the
proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a Writ Petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A
mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show
cause notice or charge sheet.
No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly
without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand
closed.