‘Higher official need not be appointing authority to suspend delinquent staff’

The first bench comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad held so while dismissing a plea moved by a junior assistant at District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur district, challenging his suspension.

As per the plea, A Ananthakumar, a junior assistant, on being issued a memo on May 21 and July 17 this year that he is lethargic and has been negligent in performing his work like failing to index 30 bundles was suspended on October 1. This was challenged by Ananthakumar on the basis that the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate is not the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings as he is not the appointing authority and that he does not have the authority to place himunder suspension.

However, the bench led by Chief Justice Sahi held that on a perusal of the rules it is apparent that the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate is a higher authority to the assistant. However, an authority lower than the appointing authority, in this case namely the Principal District Judge. But Under Rule 12, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner.

On the issue as to whether the writ petitioner can be placed under suspension or not, the bench held “A perusal of para 3 of GO Ms No 19, would show that the government wanted to give the power to place an employee under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules to an authority higher than the delinquent employee, even though he might not be the appointing authority.”

The bench also held that in view of Rule 12 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules as amended from time to time, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate being a higher authority has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

“A holistic reading of Rule14 read with para 3 of GO Ms No 19, P&AR(N) Department, dated February 11, 2008, gives the power to an authority higher than the delinquent employee to place a delinquent employee under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules pending departmental proceedings,” the bench said.

Further, the bench on holding that this Court at this juncture is not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the charge memo, which was also under challenge, said “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.”

However, the bench while dismissing the plea also directed the Registrar General, Madras high court, District Judge, Tiruvallur and District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi to proceed with the departmental enquiry and complete the same within 16 weeks.