Dismissed

R.Rajendran, v. the Conseravator of Forest

Madras HC12 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3792/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging a charge memo issued against a government employee nearing retirement. The court held that the employee's lack of cooperation and the case specifics rendered previous precedents on time limits inapplicable. The petition was dismissed, but the court directed the inquiry to be concluded within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Respondents directed to complete the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

R.Rajendran, Vs the Conseravator of Forest — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/03/2013 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Writ Petition (MD) No.3792 of 2013

R.Rajendran

... Petitioner

1.The Conservator of Forest, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul.

¶7

2.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal.

¶8

3.The Enquiry Officer/ The District Forest Officer, (Tiger Sanctuary, Pollachi Division) Pollachi. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued by him in memo No.2900/2011 P1 dated 13.06.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to superannuate the petitioner from service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶10

For petitioner ... Mr.S.Sivakumar

¶11

For Respondents ... Mr.T.R.Janarthanam

¶12

Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

¶15

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the charge memo issued against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge memo was issued on 13.06.2011. Thereafter, he filed writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.5073 of 2012 before this Court and the writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the earliest and to pass final orders within a period of three months. Though the order was passed by this Court on 19.04.2012, the Enquiry Officer was appointed by proceeding dated 21.07.2012 and till date, no progress has been made and the petitioner sought for certain documents and that were not furnished and therefore, as per judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 625, the charge memo has to be quashed, as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents failed to complete the enquiry within the stipulated time fixed by this Court. It is further submitted that the charges are

¶16

¶17

very vague and on that ground charges are to be quashed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without furnishing the documents sought for by the petitioner, the respondents have prolonged the enquiry and therefore, the petitioner is put to serious prejudice and without furnishing the documents sought for by the petitioner, the respondents should not proceed with the enquiry and lastly, it is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.144 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007, the initiation of enquiry just before the date of retirement is liable to be set aside.

¶18

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the Hon'ble Division Bench held in judgment reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 625 ( State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary ot Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Department, Chennai and another vs. T.Ranganathan) that once a competent court fixed an outer time limit to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, the parties to the proceedings are bound to strictly adhere to the time granted to comply with the said order and the parties to the proceedings can approach this Court for extension of time by stating sufficient reasons, in this case, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, the enquiry could not be completed within the time frame fixed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.5073 of 2012. Further, it has been made clear in the order dated 19.04.2012 made in W.P.No.5073 of 2012 that if the petitioner co-operates with the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry shall be completed and final orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of initiation of enquiry. In this case, the Enquiry Officer was appointed by proceeding dated 21.07.2012 and the petitioner was directed to appear for enquiry on 06.09.2012 and the petitioner appeared and requested certain documents to be furnished and thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned and on the adjournment date also, he submitted representation for furnishing of documents preferred by him to participate in the enquiry and thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned and it is not known whether the enquiry has been adjourned to any future date. Having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, namely that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- by withdrawing the same from the Bank on various dates, in my opinion, the documents sought for by the petitioner in his representation, dated 28.06.2011 have no relevance. It is a specific charge levelled against the petitioner that he withdrew Rs.3,70,000/- on various dates and if it is the case of the petitioner that the amount was withdrawn and utilised as per the scheme, it is for him to explain the same during the enquiry and if it is the case of the petitioner that he has not withdrawn the said amount that could also be substantiated during enquiry.

¶19

Further, it is seen from the memo of charges that the bank passbook relating to the account No.01100050155 and 01100050154 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ maintained in Devadhanapatti State Bank of India, were furnished

¶20

¶21

along with the charge memo. Therefore, in my opinion, the enquiry could not be proceeded because of the attitude of the petitioner in demanding certain documents, which are not necessary for the enquiry. Therefore, as per the order of this Court made in W.P.No.5073 of 2012 only when the petitioner co-operates with the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry has to be completed within a period of three months and as there is no co-operation by the petitioner, the time limit has no relevance and therefore, the judgment reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 625 cannot be pressed into service in this case.

¶22

As regards the second submission that the charges are very vague and on that ground, the charges are liable to be dismissed the same cannot also be accepted. It is seen from the annexure that details of the charges 1 and 2 have been mentioned and therefore, having regard to the annexures, it cannot be stated that the charges are very vague. As regards the other contention that as per G.O.Ms.No.144 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007 that a person shall not be placed under suspension prior to his retirement and every endeavour must be taken to complete the enquiry before his retirement date, in this case, even according to the petitioner, 10 days prior to his date of superannuation, the charge memo was issued and as the petitioner reached superannuation on 30.06.2011, necessarily the petitioner has to be placed under suspension for proceeding with the enquiry.

¶23

As per G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 08.06.2007, as per clause 5, last minute suspension of the Government servant on the date of retirement shall not be resorted to and admittedly, it is not a case of last minute suspension and the petitioner was served with the charge memo 10 days prior to his retirement and pending disciplinary proceedings, he was not allowed to retire and for that purpose, he was placed under suspension on 29.06.2011. Therefore, the said G.O. cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Further, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in not co-operating with the enquiry, it is not possible for the respondents to complete with the enquiry. Hence, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of six months and if the petitioner wants a document to be perused and if such documents are relevant for the enquiry, the respondents are directed to furnish those documents and if such documents are not necessary, the respondents are directed to send reply to the petitioner about his request and complete the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(LA)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

¶30

To 1.The Conservator of Forest, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul. 2.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal. 3.The Enquiry Officer/ The District Forest Officer, (Tiger Sanctuary, Pollachi Division) Pollachi. +1cc to Mr.S.Sivakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.13248 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.13524 Order made in W.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2013 12.03.2013 RR SMA/1/4/2013/6C/4P

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Rajendran, v. the Conseravator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajendran, v. the Conseravator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Manikandan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M.Chellaiah, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

P. Rajapandi, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M/S. Sunpak, Vs the Commissioner of Central

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

S.Kannan, Vs the General Manager