Discharging An Official Work Will Not Amount To Violation Of Human Rights: Madras HC Allows Petitions Against SHRC
The Madras High Court while allowing petitions filed against State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), Tamil Nadu observed that discharging an official work does not amount to violation of human rights.
The Court observed thus in a batch of writ petitions seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to quash the order of SHRC and to forbear from taking any proceedings or action.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice N. Senthilkumar held, “We are aware that the Writ Petitioner Dr.G.R.M.Rao has only forwarded the complaints or forwarded the community certificate for verification, which is nothing but his official work. Discharging an official work will not amount to violation of human rights. In the absence of any specific allegation against the Writ Petitioner Dr.G.R.M.Rao, we are unable to see that there is an iota of material of human rights violation against the Writ Petitioner Dr.G.R.M.Rao.”
Senior Central Government Standing Counsel S.R. Sundaram appeared for the petitioners while Advocate B. Damodaran appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The complainant had preferred a complaint before SHRC stating that she belonged to Sholaga Community classified as Scheduled Tribe and had obtained a community certificate from the Tahsildar. She entered the service of the Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai as Junior Clerk provisionally in 1989 based on a community certificate. After completion of probation, she was promoted as a Senior Clerk in 1995 and then came on transfer as Administrative Officer in 1996. She made allegations against the petitioner that he was making advances with baser instincts, however, there was no evidence or material in support of her allegations.
The complaint was directly made to the Appointing Authority in 1999 and the specific case of the petitioner was that the complainant’s community certificate was not verified at the time of her employment. But the community certificate was sent for verification when she was promoted as a Senior Clerk and the District Collector had cancelled the community certificate after holding an enquiry and her service was terminated and thereafter a CB-CID complaint was also preferred. The Secondary School Cumulative record book of the complainant was found to be tampered by erasing the letter ‘R’ in the word ‘Sholaga’. Hence, she filed a petition, challenging the order of cancellation of community certificate which was pending before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “Though the second respondent had succeeded in all the Writ Petitions as well as in the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is a statutory right conferred on the person aggrieved by an order passed by the Authority. Such exercise of power and succeeding as against the order passed by the Authority does not mean that the Writ Petitioner P.K.Manimandram had exceeded his limits. The act of the Writ Petitioner P.K.Manimandram is only verification of the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the second respondent herein, through which her employment was confirmed.”
The Court said that in the absence of community certificate being verified by the Competent Authority based on which the complainant’s employment rests upon, it is incumbent on the petitioner to find out the genuineness of the community certificate.
“This Court has no hesitation to hold that in the absence of any complaint ever since 1996 as against the Writ Petitioner P.K.Manimandram till the complaint before Director General, ICAR on 27.02.1999 and before the first respondent/SHRC on 13.10.2000, the cognizance taken by the first respondent/SHRC is without jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993”, it added.
The Court concluded that the complainant has not shown any material to show that there was a human rights violation by the petitioner and for discharging his official duty, one cannot be put to challenge that it would be a violation of human rights.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of SHRC.
Cause Title- P.K. Manimandram v. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioners: SCGSC S.R. Sundaram
Respondents: Advocates B. Damodaran and B. Suresh Kumar.