Cannot adjudicate the merits and demerits of the allegations set out in the charge memos: ‘Can’t move court for mere charge memos’

Noting that intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not preferable, Justice S M Subramaniam said “Mere issuance of a call letter to the writ petitioner directing him to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move the writ petition. Thus, the petition is absolutely misconceived, and grounds raised in this writ petition cannot be considered.”

As per the case, K Thirumurgan working as Administrative Officer, Institute of Ceramic Technology, Virudhachalam, in the department of Industries and Commerce, was issued with a charge memo accusing him of failing to furnish the cash receipt and remittance chalan during the inspection held on June 27, 2014. Based on this, he was charged of violating Rule 20 of Government Servants Conduct Rules.

Challenging this, Thirumurgan moved the court seeking to quash the charge memo issued against him.

However, Justice Subramaniam on holding that the High Court cannot adjudicate the merits and demerits of the allegations set out in the charge memos, said “Such complex and disputed facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated only by producing documents and by adducing evidences if required.”

Also, on pointing out that a charge memo can be challenged only if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction and allegation of malafides if the same is in violation of statutory rules, Justice Subramaniam said “This court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memorandum framed against the petitioner.

It is left open to the petitioner to establish his innocence or otherwise during enquiry and the charge memo cannot be quashed as sought in the petition.”

Thereafter, Justice Subramaniam directed the Industries Commissioner to conclude the enquiry proceedings in all respects and pass final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

The Madras High Court has decried the process of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature.

Allowing a criminal original petition moved seeking to quash a FIR registered against six persons in a land dispute, Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan, said “Civil matters are given a criminal orientation in a bid to either apply pressure against the accused or subject them to harassment.”

“Criminal courts should also ensure that proceedings before it is not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes,” the judge added.

As per the case, a dispute had emerged between one Pavankumar and S. Palanisamy over 1.10 acres at Vilangurichi village in Coimbatore District.

While suits and review petitions pertaining to the issue is pending, the later had filed a complaint against the former accusing him of conspiring with others and fabricating documents to make it seem that the property belonged to him.

Based on this, a FIR was registered against Pavankumar and five others under various IPC sections ranging from conspiracy to cheating.

Pavankumar’s counsel submitted that suppressing the facts about the decree granted in his favour in 2016, a couple of High Court orders and the review Palanisamy himself had moved, the criminal complaint has been filed to settle scores and harass Pavakumar and six others. Hence, the FIR ought to be quashed, he said.

Based on this, Justice Ilanthiraiyan on recording the suits pending in this regard and the ex-parte order being under challenge, said “The entire issue is civil in nature and there is no iota of evidence to constitute any of the offence as registered by the de facto complainant.”

Also, holding that the entire complaint is nothing but clear abuse of the process of court and it cannot be sustained, the judge quashed the FIR on the file of the Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Coimbatore.