Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
01. 08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.21685 of 2009 P.Indiragandhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Anandan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP ORDER
The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings passed by the second respondent / the Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Trichy, in Rc.No.348/2009/A1, T.D.P.No.9/2009, dated 27.05.2009, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the respondents to re-transfer the petitioner to Cuddalore and regularise her service in the post of Junior Employment Officer with due regards to the petitioner's seniority.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 08.04.1985 by recruitment through TNPSC. She was promoted to the post of Assistant on 08.06.1992 and again, she was further promoted to the post of Junior Employer Officer in the year 2006. Whileso, she was issued with a charge memo dated 27.05.2009 by the second respondent, containing the following charges: i. You (Accused Officer 1) while working as Assistant, District Employment Office, being a public servant have acquired immovable properties for sale amount of Rs.35,010/- in the name of your husband Tr.V.Subramanian at Kondur Village, Old Survey No.75 and New R.S.No.32/3 from Tr.Thirugnanam S/o Vardaraj Semmandalam Cuddalore with an extent of 2001 sq.ft. while document No.1681/93 dated 03.11.1993 of Joint Sub Registry-III, Cuddalore dated 21.03.2000. ii. You (Accused Officer 1) acquired immovable properties of plot No.5 for sale amount of Rs.67,000/- in the name of your husband Tr.V.Subramanian at Usuppur Village in Old Survey No.5/5 and 5/6, New Survey No.5/5B and 5/6B from Tmt.Tayam W/o R.Seetharaman, Thadandar Nagar, Chennai, with an extent of 2030 sq.ft. for each plot while document No.2007/2, dated 26.08.2002 of Joint Sub Registry, Chidambaram. You (Accused Officer1) have purchased the above properties without getting prior permission from the appropriate authority in your department and thus violated rule 7(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973. iii. Your (Accused Officer 1) constructed residential R.C.C. Buildings in the name of your husband Tr.V.Subramanian, at Kondur Village in Old Survey No.75 and New Survey No.32/3 with an extent of 2001 sq.ft. iv. You (Accused Officer 1) constructed R.C.C. Buildings in the name your husband Tr.V.Subramanian at Usuppur Village in Old Survey No.5/5 and 5/6, New Survey No.5/5B and 5/6B from Tmt.Jam W/o R.Seetharaman, Thandandar Nagar, Chennai, with an extent of 2030 sq.ft. for each plot. You have constructed the above said buildings without getting prior permission from the appropriate authority in your department and thus violated rule 7(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973. By narrating the above said facts, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said property as stated in the impugned charge memo was purchased by her husband, who is a teacher in Pondicherry, after due intimation to the department, therefore, as per the Rule 7(1)(a) of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 (in short ".the Rules".), there is no necessity to get prior permission from the appropriate authority, as the said property was purchased out of his resources.
3. He has also further submitted that he is not pressing for the second part of the prayer seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to re-transfer her to Cuddalore.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, since the petitioner has come to this Court challenging only the correctness of the charge memo. When the charge memo is not concluded holding against the petitioner, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the impugned charge memo, is too early, as she has to furnish her explanation to the charge memo.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract the Rule 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the same are read as follows: ".7(1)(a) --- No Government servant shall, except after notice to the prescribed authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift, exchange or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member his family. Such a notice will be necessary even where any immovable property is acquired by any member of the family of the Government Servant out of the resources of the Government Servant:- Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained if any such transaction is with a person having official dealings with the Government servant: Provided further that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall not be necessary for the acquisition of immovable property in respect of house-site assigned by the Government to the Government Servant. Explanation: A Government servant is not required to give notice to the prescribed authority or seek prior permission from the prescribed authority for acquisition or disposal of immovable properties by the members of his family under clause (a), if the immovable property in question is not acquired from the resources of the Government servant concerned. (b) Every Government servant, for the construction or extension or acquisition of a house, shall report to the prescribed authority in the following manner :---- (i) before starting the construction or extension or entering into transaction for acquisition of a house either from out of loan or advance from the Government or others or part-final withdrawal from the Provident Fund, he shall obtain previous sanction of the prescribed authority in Form VI or VI-A, as the case may be in Schedule I appended to these rules: (ii) after completing the construction or extension, he shall report to the prescribed authority in Form VII in Schedule I appended to these rules. The details in Forms VI and VII in Schedule I appended to these rules shall be furnished wherever it is possible to do so. Where, however, it is not possible to furnish details, the Government servant shall mention the covered area on which the building is erected or proposed to be erected, and the estimated cost of the building.".
7. A plain reading of the above said Rules along with explanation given under the Rule 7 clearly shows that the petitioner, being a government servant, is not required to give notice to the prescribed authority seeking prior permission from the prescribed authority for acquisition or disposal of the immovable properties by the members of his family, if the impugned property in question is not acquired from the sources of the Government servant concerned. Admittedly, in the present case, as stated above, the property in question was purchased by the petitioner's husband V.Subramanian and this could be seen from the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner that the petitioner's husband written a letter to his department-the Chief Educational Officer, Pondicherry, seeking permission to purchase a property at Kondur Village, Cuddalore.
8. Further, a plain reading of the Rule 7(1)(b) shows that a Government servant for the construction or extension or acquisition of a house, shall report to his department in the prescribed format as stated in the said Rule. Therefore, as per the said Rule, the petitioner's husband, who being a teacher, sought a permission from his department and thereby, the department, vide letter dated 04.03.205, had also given a permission for construction of building and this could be seen from the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner.
9. Hence, for the reasons stated above, for no fault committed by the petitioner, issuing a charge memo to the petitioner is totally contrary to Rule 7(1)(a)(b) of the Rules. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to quash the charge memo issued by the respondents and accordingly, the charge memo issued by the second respondent is quashed.
10. In fine, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index:yes/no 01.08.2013 Internet:yes/no rkm To 1.The Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli. T.RAJA,J.
Rkm W.P.No.21685 of 2009 01.08.2013