I. Mir Hithayathullah Khan vs The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul and The Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Dindigul, Dindigul District

R. Banumathi, J.—Being aggrieved by dismissal of Writ Petition - W.P.(MD) No. 9246 of 2007 and declining to quash charge memo

(12.4.2004), appellant has preferred this appeal. From 1994, Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned Pre-Matric scholarships to children of those

engaged in certain occupation i.e., scavenging, tanning and flaying. To avail the pre-Matric scholarships, applicant has to furnish a employment

certificate from the Designated Officer in the Municipal Corporation and the Executive Officers in respect of Town Panchayats and Panchayat

President in respect of Village Panchayats. In the year 1999-2000, complaints were received that bogus certificates were issued in the name of

running tanneries and number of persons obtained pre-matric scholarship. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul sent a report

stating that nearly a sum of Rs. 49,07,700/- was sanctioned to the parents on the basis of certificates issued by Deputy Tahsildars on the

recommendations made by concerned Village Administrative Officers and Revenue Inspectors. On the basis of report, charges under Rule 17(b)

of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against thirty persons including the appellant. The appellant, who was

Deputy Tahsildar, is alleged to have issued 138 certificates to the ineligible students and alleged to have caused loss of revenue to the Government

to the tune of Rs. 1,07,850/- . The gist of charges against the appellant is that he was not competent to issue such employment certificates; but

contrary to the instructions, he has countersigned 138 certificates, which resulted in loss of revenue.

Charge memo was issued to the appellant on 12.4.2004 and the appellant offered his explanation. Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Dindigul

was appointed as Enquiry Officer in proceedings No. A1/42509/2000 dated 12.2.2005. Enquiry Officer sent his report in March, 2006 stating

that the charges are proved except Charge No. 3. Enquiry Officer''s report was served to the appellant and his further explanation was obtained.

The District Collector conducted personal hearing on 6.10.2006 and statement of appellant was recorded. Observing that the Enquiry Officer did

not check some beneficiaries, to know about the veracity of the charges, the District Collector ordered re-enquiry appointing another Enquiry

Officer - Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Dindigul by proceedings No. 42509/2000/A1 dated 29.03.2007.

It was at that stage, appellant has filed the writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the charge memo dated

12.4.2004 issued by the 1st respondent and seeking direction to the 1st respondent to consider the appellant for promotion as Tahsildar.

Learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant cannot seek quashing of charge memo. The learned judge directed

that the enquiry against the appellant shall be completed and final orders be passed within a period of two months.

Challenging the order of dismissal of writ petition, appellant has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the

impugned charge memo issued by the 1st respondent on 12.4.2004 is in respect of alleged delinquency of the year 1999-2000 and the same is

vitiated by the delay in initiation of departmental proceedings and as such impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for

appellant placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in P.V.MAHADEVAN VS. MD.T.N.HOUSING BOARD, (2005) 6 SCC 636).

In P.V. Mahadevan''s case, there was an inordinate delay of ten years in initiating departmental enquiry against the delinquent and no convincing

explanation was given by the respondent/ employer. In those circumstances of the case, Supreme Court held that allowing Departmental

proceedings to proceed at the distant point of time would be prejudicial to the appellant and the appellant has already suffered enough on account

of disciplinary proceedings. Since there was no explanation offered by the respondent - employer for the inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary

action, Supreme Court quashed the charge memo.

Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to proceed as per the relevant rules. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined

principles applicable to all cases and in a situation, where there is a delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, whether on that ground of delay of

disciplinary proceedings, the charge memo is to be quashed, has to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to

take into consideration of the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them. Unless there is inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings

charge memo cannot be quashed.

Considering the case on hand, in the light of well settled principles, even though the alleged act of delinquency was during the year of 1999-

2000, issuance of bogus certificates came to light only after some time. Thereafter, Revenue Divisional Officer conducted field enquiry and during

field level enquiry it was found that a sum of Rs. 49,07,700/- was sanctioned on the basis of bogus certificates. Charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil

Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against thirty persons, which included 12 Deputy Tahsildars, 5 Revenue

Inspectors and 13 Village Administrative Officers, who are said to have issued 5869 Income Certificates in the scholarship form to the tune of Rs.

49,07,700/- to the ineligible persons. Considering the huge number of bogus certificates issued and number of delinquent officers involved, it

cannot be said that there was delay in issuing the charge memo.

Charge memo was issued to the appellant on 12.4.2004 alleging that he had issued 138 Certificates to ineligible pupils and the appellant is

alleged to have caused loss of revenue to Government to the tune of Rs. 1,07,850/- . After the appellant offered his explanation, enquiry officer

was appointed on 12.2.2005. After issuing second show cause notice, personal hearing was conducted by the Collector on 6.10.2006. On finding

that Enquiry Officer did not check certain beneficiaries to know about the veracity of the charges and the responsibility of the officials in issuing

certificates, it was ordered for re- enquiry by the Collector and thereafter another Enquiry Officer was appointed on 29.3.2007. Therefore, it

cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings.

It is fairly well settled that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, charge memo cannot be quashed. In Union of

India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the respondent therein was issued Charge Memo for availing reservation against the post

ear-marked for ST category though he did not belong to the said category. Instead of submitting reply to the Charge Memo, he preferred Original

Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which disposed of the same with a direction to the respondent to submit his explanation to

the Charge Memo and on such, the disciplinary authority was directed to consider his name. Instead of filing reply, the respondent filed a Writ

Petition which came to be allowed. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court. In Paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 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 and Ors [JT 1995 (8) SC 33], The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd.

Ghulam Ghouse and Another, Ulagappa and Ors. v. Divisional Commr., Mysore and Ors. [ 2001 (10)SCC 639], State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.

Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, 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.

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.

Following the ratio of the above decision, in our considered view, charge memo cannot be quashed. It is pertinent to note that as per the

direction in W.P. No. 9246 of 2007 (dated 13.3.2008), the enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer sent his report on 30.4.2008 finding that the

charges are not proved. As per Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the disciplinary authority viz., District Collector has not

accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and took a deviated view in Roc. No. 42509/2000/A1 dated 16.06.2008 and the appellant has been

directed to submit his explanation. On receipt of further explanation from the appellant dated 9.7.2008, final order has been passed imposing

punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. When the writ appeal was admitted, this Court has observed in the

stay petition - M.P. No. 1 of 2008 that ""any final order passed in the enquiry proceedings will be subject to the result of the Writ Appeal."" Now

that Writ Appeal is dismissed, the final order shall become operative. Since the charge memo cannot be quashed, Writ Court rightly dismissed the

writ petition and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.