This order set aside a departmental charge memo issued against a Village Administrative Officer for issuing false certificates, quashing it due to inordinate delay without explanation and directing the issuance of pension proposals.
Impugned charge memo set aside; respondent directed to send pension proposals within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.09.2011
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.10676 of 2011
and M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
R.Balasubramani ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat
Chennai - 9
... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the charge memo made in Letter No. 2234/Ser7 (2)/ 2011-5 dated 17.2.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Pala Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the charge memo made in Letter No. 2234/Ser7 (2)/2011-5 dated 17.2.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the respondent herein, by which, disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
2. According to the petitioner, he entered service as Village Administrative Officer in the year 1984. The Government have framed charges, alleging that the Village Administrative Officer has issued false certificates in the name of fictitious persons, with false particulars without making inspection and without verifying survey number of the lands, which facilitated middle men and traders to sell copra in Natham Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Natham.
3. The petitioner has further submitted that earlier, criminal cases were registered against the subordinates in the Agriculture Department and Revenue Department and that the same were withdrawn as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per G.O. 210, Agriculture Department AA-2, dated 09.10.2009. Pursuant to which, the impugned disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
2
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The impugned charge memo has been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay.
4. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board , reported in 2005(4) CTC 403 , in W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007; in W.A.No. 610 of 2008 , dated 06.03.2009; in T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department, Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan, IPS Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Ch-28 and other, reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) ; and in B.K.Gunasekaran V. State of T.N. reported in 2010(7) MLJ 161 .
5. Attention of this Court has also been invited to an order made in W .P.No. 8924 of 2006 & 6508 of 2009 , dated 17.03.2010 in L.Frederick Jayaseelan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others ), wherein this Court, after considering the facts and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (stated supra) and other cases, has quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners therein. At paragraph No.8 of the order, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:-
"In view of the judicial dictum laid down by the Apex Court, applying the same to the facts of the present case, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the order of suspension as well as the impugned charge memo are illegal. Since the respondent has not chosen to explain the reason for delay, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memo is liable to be set aside."
6. There is no quarrel over the similarity of the facts, with the one stated supra. Even Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice for the respondent, fairly submitted that disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Agricultural Department for the alleged delinquency, has been quashed in many cases. No appeal seemed to have been filed against the order made in W.P.Nos. 8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010.
7. Considering the submissions of both sides and after going through the materials on record and on perusal of the order made in the abovesaid Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos. 8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the orders stated supra. The facts are similar and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay.
8. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order is set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to send the pension proposals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3
9. The Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai – 9
+1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 39385
vsg
ssk/30.09.2011 /3c -3p/-
W.P.(MD).No.10676 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
20.09.2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the departmental charge memo against the petitioner should be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay without explanation.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the orders setting aside departmental proceedings in similar fact situations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005(4) CTC 403Referred¶4
W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007Referred¶4
W.A.No. 610 of 2008, dated 06.03.2009Referred¶4
T.N. Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department, Chennai and another Vs. R. Ramarajan, IPS, 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil)Referred¶4
B.K. Gunasekaran V. State of T.N., 2010(7) MLJ 161Referred¶4
L. Frederick Jayaseelan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others, W.P.Nos. 8924 Followed¶5
R. Balasubramani
The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai - 9
S. Manikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
