AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Devadass, J.—Thambidurai, Senior Bailiff, in the District Court, Madurai, in this writ petition sought for issuance of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the official memorandum of the Principal District Judge, Madurai/Respondent dated 16.06.2011 seeking explanation from him with regard to certain allegations made against him and the proceedings dated 16.06.2011, whereunder he was placed under suspension, pending disciplinary action initiated against him and quash the same. In 1992, the petitioner was appointed as Masalchi in the unit of District Judge, Madurai. Thereafter, he was promoted to several posts. Lastly, in 2002, he was promoted as Senior Bailiff. He was working as such in the District Court, Madurai.
In D. No. 7801 dated 16.06.2011, the respondent issued him official memorandum calling for his explanation from him with regard to two complaints viz., a complaint by one S.P. Ganesan and a complaint by one Muthaiah and others of Labour Union of Mahalakshmi Mills Ltd., Madurai. Both the complaints relates to execution of delivery warrants issued in two different civil cases. On the same day, in his proceedings in D. No. 7800 dated 16.06.2011, pending enquiry, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the complaint of Ganesan enquiry was conducted and the charges were dropped. On the complaint of Muthaiah and others also, the respondent conducted enquiry and submitted a detailed report to this Court that the petitioner is not involved in the matter. In the circumstances, there is no basis to proceed as against the petitioner and place him under suspension.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent admit that the complaint lodged by Ganesan was enquired into and the charges were dropped. In pursuance of the directions of the Registrar (Administration) of this Court, on both the complaints action has been initiated and the enquiry is pending. The learned counsel contended that only after the enquiry, whether the petitioner is involved or not could be known and now it is premature to consider the petitioner''s contentions.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Perused the records of the case and the impugned show-cause notice and the order of suspension dated 16.06.2011.
On 20.04.2006, the petitioner was entrusted with the delivery warrant issued in E.P. No. 103 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 29 of 1991 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town for execution. S.P. Ganesan, respondent in the said litigation sent complaint dated 15.06.2007, to the respondent that the petitioner was bribed by the decree holder, the petitioner created false delivery athachi and impersonated one Shivakumar, a police constable. The respondent called for explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation. Having not satisfied with his explanation, the respondent framed charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, Ganesan withdrawn his complaint. He did not gave any incriminating evidence. As there was no material to substantiate the charges, the respondent passed Final Orders dated 13.02.2010, exonerating the petitioner from the charges.
It is pertinent to note that already there was a similar complaint in the name of P.S. Ganesan as against the petitioner to the Registrar-General of this Court. On 13.11.2010, Ganesan wrote to the High Court that he did not send any such complaint and somebody might have forged his signature and sent such a complaint. This letter has been produced by the petitioner in the additional typed set. The genuineness or veracity of this letter remains undisputed.
Muthiah and others, who are representatives of Labour Union of Mahalakshmi Mills Ltd., Pasumalai, Madurai, sent complaint that with regard to the execution of delivery warrant issued in E.A. No. 844 of 2008 in E.P. No. 315 of 2000, petitioner committed certain malpractice. The respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. He submitted his detailed explanation that that matter not pertains to him and he is not involved in the alleged malpractice.
On 01.04.2011, in D. No. 4367 dated 01.04.2011, the respondent submitted a report to the Registrar (Administration) of this Bench informing the exoneration of the petitioner from the charges framed on the complaint of Ganesan and also informed that with regard to the complaint of Muthiah, the delivery warrant is not issued to the petitioner and the matter pertains to the District Munsif, Thirumangalam and one Elango, Senior Bailiff is involved in the matter and show-cause notice also has been issued to him.
However, the Registrar (Administration) of this Bench in R.O.C. No. 353/2008/C3/MB dated 16.06.2011 issued official memorandum directing the respondent to place the petitioner immediately under suspension and also directed initiation of departmental proceedings against him.
In pursuance of the said directive, the respondent issued the impugned official memorandum dated 16.06.2011, calling for explanation from the petitioner with regard to the complaint of S.P. Ganesan and complaint of Muthaiah and on the same day, pending enquiry, by his impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2011, the respondent also placed the petitioner under suspension and that is how the petitioner is under continued suspension.
Petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the respondent that the complaint of Ganesan has been enquired into and he has been exonerated from the charges and with regard to the complaint lodged by Muthaiah, he is not at all involved in the matter and after a preliminary enquiry, the respondent also accepted the same.
On perusal of the records it is seen that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner remains there at the stage of show-cause notice and receipt of his explanation. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that no charge has been framed and matter remains at the show cause notice stage itself.
Disciplinary action was initiated as early as on 16.06.2011. The petitioner was also immediately placed under suspension. Till date he is under suspension. There is no further progress. The petitioner is out of employment. This matter concerned with the livelihood of the petitioner and also of others depending upon him. These matters requires expeditious disposal. These matters should not be kept in cold storage.
If it is shown that there are no materials or basis at all to proceed against the petitioner and also placing him under suspension even if the disciplinary action is at its nascent stage, the Writ Court can interfere and render justice to the affected person. In such circumstances, this Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the disciplinary action was initiated by the District Judge himself or it was initiated on the direction of this Court, it must be in conformity with the Service Rules, Service Jurisprudence and principles of law. There cannot be any exception to this.
With regard to the complaint preferred by one Ganesan, a full scale enquiry was conducted by the respondent. Ultimately, the charges framed against him were found not established and thus he was exonerated from the charges. So, that matter was over. Again, it cannot be reopened. If reopened, it will be double jeopardy. For the same matter, the petitioner shall not be vexed twice.
With regard to the complaint preferred by Muthaiah and others, the respondent conducted a detailed preliminary enquiry and found that the matter pertains to the District Munsif''s Court, Thirumangalam and there are materials to show that one Elango, a Senior Bailiff of that Court is involved in the matter and a memo has been issued to him and disciplinary proceedings is also pending against him. The respondent has clearly stated in his report dated 01.04.2011, in the complaint the petitioner is not involved. Of course, with regard to the complaint lodged by Muthaiah, as on date, the enquiry was not completed and still it is in the show-cause notice stage. But, in this matter, as regards the petitioner there is no material or basis. There is not even a prima-facie case as against the petitioner to proceed against him. In the circumstances, the proceedings dated 16.06.2011 as against him is not warranted.
Thus in the circumstances, issuing show-cause notice dated 16.06.2011 to the petitioner on the basis of the two complaints is not in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned order of suspension issued against him, pending such an enquiry must also go. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The official memorandum in D. No. 7801 dated 16.06.2011, issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner and the order of suspension issued in proceedings dated 16.06.2011 in D. No. 7800 dated 16.06.2011 are quashed. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service. The respondent/Principal District Judge, Madurai shall issue him posting orders. His suspension period shall be treated as duty period. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2011 is closed.