G R RAGUNATHAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings Ref.No.73461/SC1/1/2007 dated 14.12.2009 and the consequential orders of the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.1338 Health and Family Welfare (K-1) Department, dated 29.12.2009 and G.O.(D)No.1357 Health and Family Welfare (K-1) Department, dated 31.12.2009 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.12.2009 with all consequential monetary and service benefits within a time frame fixed by the court. Heard both sides. THIS Writ petition challenges the charge memo issued by the second respondent dated 14.12.2009 framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules and the consequential order dated 31.12.2009. As the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, he was not allowed to retire by the order of the Government in G.O.1338 and 1357, H&FW Department, dated 31.12.2009.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Charge Memo is illegal and is liable to be quashed on the ground that the charges are baseless and the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and that it has been based on a false complaint.

(3.) THE Supreme Court vide judgment in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 in para 5 observed as follows: 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted.