Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan observed that an employee has a right to submit a representation and it is for the administrative authorities to decide whether such request could be permitted or not. The court held that merely submitting a representation cannot be seen as misconduct or a basis for issuing a departmental charge memo.

“An employee is well within their rights to submit representations to higher authorities, and it is ultimately for the administrative authorities to decide whether such a request can be acceded to. Merely submitting a representation cannot be construed as misconduct, nor can it form the basis for issuing a departmental charge memo,” the court said.

The court was hearing three petitions filed by a man, V Nagalingam, who was in police service and was facing enquiry. The first petition challenged the order by which the man was directed to face an oral inquiry. The second petition challenged the order by which the charges against the man were held as proved. The third order sought directions for settlement of retirement benefits.

The charge against Nagalingam was that he had approached the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Chief Minister's Special Cell with a representation seeking permission to start a police association.

The Government submitted that as on date, no final punishment had been imposed on Nagalingam and the inquiry order and subsequent memo remained pending without culmination in a final order.

The court noted that owing to the pendency of the writ petitions, Nagalingam was permitted to retire from service subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The court noted that the disciplinary proceedings had been pending since 2004, merely for submitting a representation. The court also noted that there has not been any progress in the disciplinary proceedings since 2007.

Considering the prolonged delay of over two decades since the issuance of the charge memo and that the charges were flimsy and unsustainable in law, the court found no legitimacy in the issuance or continuation of the charges.

Thus, noting that the disciplinary proceedings deserve to be quashed, the court ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J. Chandran Sundar Sashikumar for Ms. Mythili Srinivas

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. P. Goutham, Government Advocate, Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan