K.Kamaraj v. The Commissioner Adi Dravidar Welfare Department
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN WRIT PETITION NO.13288 OF 2020 AND W.M.P.NOS.16422 AND 16425 OF 2020 K.Kamaraj ...
Petitioner -Vs1 The Commissioner Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Chepauk Chennai 2 The Director Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 3 District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer Cuddalore Dt 4 The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Virudhachalam Tk Cuddalore Dt ... Respondents Prayer :
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in pursuant to the impugned order in Na.Ka. No. O1/ 6840/ 2015 dated 24.01.2020 and the enquiry report connected thereto and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire by 31.03.2020 with all the retirement benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selva Kumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The matter was taken up through Web-hearing.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking to challenge the show cause notice issued against the petitioner dated 24.01.2020
directing the petitioner to show cause as to why further action should not be taken against him in pursuance of the charge memo issued to him and also in pursuance of the enquiry report dated 26.04.2018.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court nowhere finds as to how exactly the petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice. In fact the averments contained in the affidavit including the grounds are only in relation to the transfer of the petitioner to different places during his tenure. This Court is unable to comprehend exactly the grounds of challenge to the show cause notice issued against the petitioner. The grounds as they appear in the writ petition are extremely shallow and lacking in legal sense for this Court to take that as the basis for ordering notice in the writ petition.
4. Moreover, the facts which are stated in the affidavit lack coherence and appear to be disjointed and cumulatively they do not make any legal sense for this Court to appreciate as to why the petitioner has chosen to challenge the show cause notice issued by the authorities after the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was due for retirement by 31.03.2020 was rightly denied in view of the pendency of the disciplinary action.
5. Unless the disciplinary action comes to an end, the question of the petitioner being permitted to retire would not arise. Even otherwise, challenge to the show cause notice is premature and it cannot be entertained by this Court particularly under the circumstances explained by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
6. For the above stated reasons, this Court finds that the writ petition is neither maintainable being premature nor to be entertained as being completely devoid of substance and merits and hence it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KST
To 1 The Commissioner Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Chepauk Chennai 2 The Director Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 3 District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer Cuddalore Dt 4 The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Virudhachalam Tk Cuddalore Dt W.P.No.13288 of 2020 PVS(CO) CS/10/12/2020