TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikumar, J. Challenge in this appeal by the petitioner/Mr.M.Sankara Subramanian, party-in-person, is to an order, made in W.P(MD) No. 23118 of 2015 dated 21.12.2015, by which, a learned Judge of this Court, has declined to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, filed to quash a show cause notice, dated 11.12.2015, issued by the 4th respondent/Estate Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Record Bureau, Tirunelveli City. 2. Show cause notice, dated 11.12.2015, impugned in W.P (MD) No. 23118 of 2015, is extracted hereunder:- FORM A (SEE RULE 3 OF THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) RULES, 1878) Notice to show cause against orders of eviction under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1976) Where as, I N.NACHIMUTHU, ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, City Crime Record Bureau, Tirunelveli City, Estate Officer, am of the opinion that the public premises Police quarters No.26, at Bharathi Nagar, Palayamkottai Taluk in Tirunelveli District, are under your unauthorised occupation since you were dismissed from service on 17.10.2012. I call upon you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that party-in- person had already been dismissed from service, while dismissing W.P(MD)No.23118 of 2015 at paragraph 7, the Writ Court, ordered as hereunder:- 7.I am not in agreement with the submission made by the petitioner particularly, when it is admitted that he is already dismissed from service. It is a different matter, if the dismissal is set aside by the appellate authority. But admittedly, the appellate authority also confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority, dismissing the petitioner from service. Just because the revisional authority is keeping the review petition pending, the same will not confer any right to the petitioner to occupy the quarters, that was allotted to him, as he is not in service. It is well known that only the serving persons are allotted quarters and the persons who are dismissed or who retired from service could not occupy the Government quarters beyond the limit prescribed under the rules. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service as early as on 17.10.2012. 7. Mr.M.Sankara Subramanian, party-in-person, assailed the correctness of the order, made by the Writ Court, on the grounds inter alia that his review petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discloses that pursuant to a departmental proceedings initiated, by issuance of a charge memo on 01.06.2001 under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the appellant has been dismissed from service, vide order, dated 17.09.2001. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City Police Office, Tirunelveli, who, by an order dated 05.11.2001, confirmed the order, passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, he had preferred a review petition to the 1st respondent/Director General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai. Vide order, dated 13.07.2002, review petition has been dismissed. As against the said order, he preferred a mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Chennai. Thereafter, he has filed W.P(MD)No.440 of 2005 challenging the abovesaid orders dated 17.09.2001, 05.11.2001 and 13.07.2002 respectively, of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities. 14. Adverting to the challenge made to the abovesaid orders, Writ Court vide order in W.P(MD)No.440 of 2005, dated 10.06.2009, set aside the aforesaid orders and directed that the appellant to be reinstated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-in- person was also informed. 19. It is a fact that party-in-person has approached the Public Information Officer and Inspector General of Police (Establishment) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Though the information given by the said authority, is not germane to the issue to be decided, by this Court, in this appeal, yet, for completion of facts, the same is reproduced hereunder:- 20. Not satisfied with the information, party in person seemed to have made another application, dated 11.11.2015, to the 1st respondent/Director General of Police, Chennai, stating that he had not received any information, about the disposal of his review petition, dated 06.06.2013, and sought for such details. Fact that the party-in-person, has been dismissed, by order, dated 18.10.2012, passed by the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City Police Office, Tirunelveli, is admitted. 21.As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, party-in-person himself, has admitted that police quarters is given, only to those police personnel, who are in service. From his own admission, it is evident police quarters is not given to those, who are not in service. Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 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 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evance. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. (emphasis supplied) (v) In Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. 23. Hence, prima facie, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
