Be Careful In Incorporating Amendments In Books, Lest The Courts Might Take Erroneous Decisions:Madras HC To Law Publishers

"This Court requests the various book publishers to be careful in incorporating amendments in the books, lest the Courts might take erroneous decisions which will be detrimental to the interests of people," the bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

The observations were made in a petition filed by one A. Ananthakumar, a junior assistant in govt. department, against his suspension. Disciplinary proceedings, under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against Ananthakumar had been initiated on allegations of negligence and subsequently, show-cause notices were issued to him and he was placed under suspension by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, under Rule 17(e).

The Petitioner assailed the disciplinary proceedings as well as the order of suspension, stating that District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate is not the competent authority in as much as he is not the appointing authority.

The court observed that in cases where show-cause notices were issued without jurisdiction, the courts had the power to exercise its powers under Article 226. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, whereby it was held that "ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause…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."

Moving on to the merits, the court noted that proviso 3 to Rule 12(2) stipulates that all authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services may frame charges against all the members of the State Services or issue show cause notice even if they are not the competent authority to impose the penalty. Thus, it was held that the show-cause notice was legally issued.

With regards the order of suspension, the court noted that as per Rule 14(a)(1)(iv) the authority which may impose suspension or penalties is the immediate Superior Officer of the State Services or, where the appointing authority for such member is an officer of the Subordinate Services, such officer or any higher authority.

"On a perusal of above mentioned 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. Under Rule 12 quoted above, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate therefore has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner," the court said.

Notably, Rule 14(a)(1) had been amended to the above effect in the year 1954. However, the rule had been "misquoted" in several law books. "This has led to lot of confusion as to whether the officer immediately superior to the delinquent officer can pass an order of suspension or not," the bench remarked.

Case Details:

Case Title: A. Ananthakumar v. Registrar General, Madras HC & Ors.

Case No.: WP No. 30961/2019

Quorum: Chief Justice AP Sahi & Justice Subramonium Prasad

Appearance: Advocate M. Gnanasekar (for Petitioner); Advocates CT Mohan and B Vijay (for Respondents)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment