Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by M. Muthukrishnan, a Junior Assistant in the Sessions Court, Mahaleer Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni. He was appointed on compassionate grounds on 25.06.2015 and posted as Examiner in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni. His pay was fixed, and the Internal Audit Wing of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court raised certain objections in Audit Slip No.1 dated 22.06.2023, addressed to the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni. Although the audit slip was not communicated to the petitioner, he obtained a copy and filed the present writ petition seeking its quashing. The petitioner contended that the audit slip contained adverse remarks regarding his pay fixation and was liable to be set aside. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for the Registrar General and other officials, resisted the petition, arguing that the communication was internal and no final decision had been taken. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether an internal audit slip, without any consequential action, furnishes a cause of action for a writ petition. The court observed that the audit slip was merely a communication from the audit wing to the Sessions Judge, who was required to consider it and take an appropriate decision. No action had been taken pursuant to the slip. Relying on the principle that a writ petition cannot be based on a mere internal communication when no right is affected, the court held that the audit slip per se does not provide a cause of action. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs. Additionally, the court noted that it was unclear how the petitioner had obtained the audit slip and directed the Principal District Judge, Theni, to conduct an inquiry into the matter and initiate appropriate action if required. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Judicial Employees - Pay Fixation Audit - Audit Slip - Cause of Action - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the Fast Track Mahila Court, challenged an internal audit slip that raised objections on pay fixation, although no disciplinary or recovery action had been taken against him. The High Court held that an audit slip per se does not furnish a cause of action for a writ petition; it is a communication between the audit wing and the concerned authority, which must first consider it and take a decision. The court dismissed the writ petition as not entertainable and directed the Principal District Judge to enquire into how the petitioner obtained the audit slip. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an internal audit slip issued by the Internal Audit Wing of the High Court addressed to a Sessions Judge can be challenged by an employee in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. The Principal District Judge, Theni, was directed to hold an inquiry into how the petitioner obtained the audit slip and to take appropriate action if necessary. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Law Points
- An internal audit slip
- without any consequential action or order affecting the rights of an individual
- does not constitute a cause of action for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
- writ of certiorari not available against an internal departmental communication
