This bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by government departments against the Single Judge's order which had set aside a departmental punishment. The Court found that proceedings were initiated with significant delay after the Suspension Order, charges were vague, did not mention key periods, and co-delinquents received different punishments.
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.
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 27.09.2024
Delivered on : 04.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.626 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)No.2804 of 2021
1.The Commissioner,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
..... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
S.Sasi Sivanantham ....Respondent/Writ Petitioner
1/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15196 of 2012, dated 13.02.2020.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIM A, J. )
This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP(MD)No.15196 of 2012, dated 13.02.2020.
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
promoted as Block Development Officer on 28.08.2008 and he was
eligible to be promoted as Development Officer in the year 2013. He was due to retire on 31.03.2015. When he was holding the post of Extension Officer, the second appellant issued charge memo vide proceedings dated
18.11.2006, levelling the following charges against him:-
1. Tmt.S.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Arumugam, served
as Cook in Hindu Middle School, Chokkalingapuram,
Karunkulam Union, Thoothukudi District, till 1995,
thereafter, not turned to work, and in her place, three ladies have been working. However, payments were
made in the name of Ramalakshmi, W/o.Subbaiah,
Pan worker. One Smt. Petchiammai wife of Ayyan Pillai had been appointed as assistant Cook, she had
not joined duty, instead, one Petchiammal, wife of Rathinasabapathy received the salary. The delinquent failed to verify the salary acquaintance.
2. That he colluded with Subbaiah Pillai, Noon
Meal Organiser and paid the wages to the cook and assistant, those who were not in service.
3/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
3. He failed to discharge his duties diligently
and sincerely and acted in contravention of rule 21 of
the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.
appellant stating that at the time of occurrence, he was not working and had not disbursed the salary and therefore, totally denied the charges.
officer, in his report, dated 24.12.2007 held that the charges against the respondent / delinquent stood proved.
4/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai, on 29.12.2008, but, the same was dismissed on 07.05.2012, in Na.Ka.No. 79958/2005/VC 1-2.
5/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
under Article 226 of Constitution of India and permissible only within the parameters enumerated by the Honourable Supreme Court in its judgement reported in 2015-(2) SCC-610 (Union of India and others V. P.Gunasekaran). The present case do not come under the purview of any of the said parameters.
6/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
he had opened a Service Register for the employee and made payment to the persons, who have not worked as noon meal staff.
been inducted into service initially as Surveyor cum Draftsman in the Survey Department on 15.03.1983 and thereafter, he entered into Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department as Junior Assistant on 18.09.1990, by way of conversion and promoted as Assistant on 02.02.1999. He was further promoted as Extension Officer in the year 2003, and promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer on 28.08.2008 and was eligible to be promoted as Block Development Officer in the year 2012. He retired on 31.03.2015.
7/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
Na.Ka.No.Va2/14005/2006–2, dated 18.11.2006, with the charges as stated supra.
upon and seven persons were cited as witnesses on the side of the Department.
8/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
was levied with lesser punishment. Without considering all factors, by a single line order, the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal without giving any reasons and confirmed the punishment by the impugned order Na.Ka.No.79958/2005/VC1 –2 dated 07.05.2012. The co-delinquent, viz., Devendran who was also charged for the same offence, was imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months with cumulative effect. It was contended that initiation of the proceedings and the punishment were ex facie illegal and unwarranted. The writ petition has been filed against the order passed on 07.05.2012. Considering the merits of the case, the learned Single Judge had set aside the impugned order and had allowed the writ petition.
9/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
the second appellant is sustainable or not ?
P Gunasekhar).
10/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
reaching fair conclusion by some consideration extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) whether the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous consideration; (f) whether the conclusion on the face of it, is so wholly, arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such a conclusion (g) whether the conclusion on the face of it is so wholly arbitrary (h) whether the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding, and (i) whether the finding of fact was based on no evidence.
out certain guidelines to the High Courts not to interfere with the enquiry proceedings viz., (i) re-appreciate evidence (ii) interfere with the conclusion in the enquiry in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence (iv) go into reliability of the evidence (v) interfere if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based (vi) correct the error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be and (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment, unless it shocks its conscience.
11/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
disciplinary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. However, in the judgement discussed above, it is clearly stated that the enquiry is expected to be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and there should not be any violation of principles of natural justice while conducting the proceedings. A finding of fact should be based on merit.
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
opened in the name of Petchiammal. The delinquent set his initials in that register.
was alleged that one Ramalakshmi was appointed in the year 1983 and had not attended duty from the year 1995. But the delinquent was not working in that period. He joined duty as Junior Assistant only on 03.07.1997. The name of the workers, who were working after
13/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
Ramalakshmi was not mentioned in the charge memo. The details in respect of payment made for the three staff and the date of disbursement and who had disbursed the amount was also not clearly mentioned in the charge.
14/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
stated that he was not aware the appointment of Ramalakshmi, Petchiammai and the details of the staffs who worked after Ramalakshmi. He was not provided with such details, but he was punished for the charges. Normally a charge should be specific and must provide details of the incident that led to the charge. Vague charges and denial of reasonable opportunity to defend can make it difficult to determine the nature of evidence available.
15/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
impugned order referred to various judgments as follows :
“7....... In M.Balakrishnan and 7 others Vs. The Corporation of Madurai and another reported in 1995 (II) CTC 589 for certain improper acts on the part of the petitioners therein, departmental proceedings were initiated after 14 years. While quashing the said proceedings, a learned single Judge has observed that such proceedings after a long period would result in great prejudice and amount to violation of the principles of natural justice.
8.In A.Obaidullah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai and another reported in 2005(5) CTC 380, a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevean Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005(4) CTC 403:2005 SCC (L&S) 861, quashed a disciplinary proceeding which was initiated after 12 years, holding that inordinate and unexplained delay defeats justice.
9.In B.Loganathan Vs. The Union of India, rep.by the Secretary to Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Department of Local Administration,
16/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
Pondicherry and another reported in 2000 (III) CTC 351, for the allegations relating to the period of the year 1982, based on a vigilance report, a charge memo was issued in 1997 and the said proceedings were put to challenge. While quashing the charge memo on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay, this Court has observed that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and that the same, violates principles of natural justice. At Paragraph 12, it has been held as follows:
“12.Learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan , 1996 (3) S.C.C. 15 would contend that the scope of judicial review is very limited and sought to distinguish the above referred decisions. No doubt, in the said decision. Their Lordships have observed that it would not be open to the Tribunal or the court to quash the suspension order and charges even at the threshold. The perusal of the judgment does not show the details such as when the incident had taken place and when the Government have
17/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
initiated action etc. In Union of India v. Ashok Kacker , 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 180, no doubt, Their Lordships have observed that it is open to the delinquent to file his reply to charge sheet and raise all objections and also invite the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In this case also, no other details have been furnished such the date of occurrence, steps taken by the Government etc. In such circumstances, I am of the view that both the decisions relied on by the Government Pleader are not helpful to their case. I have already stated that even according to the 2nd respondent, the alleged irregularities had taken place in the year 1982 and even after receipt of the report from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pondicherry Government in the year 1993 the impugned charge memo was issued only on 5.11.97. The inordinate and unexplained delay vitiates the impugned charge memo and the same is liable to be quashed. As observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (2) S.C.C. 570, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after a lapse of
18/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. Here, in our case, the petitioner has raised a plea that the delay is likely to cause prejudice to him in defending himself. If such plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. I have already stated that the first charge states that the petitioner did not disburse cash from January, 1982 and, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, not even the period is mentioned clearly and likewise, the statement that cash book was not maintained properly is a bald statement. Further, the nature of the charges relate to day-to-day activities of disbursement of cash and maintenance of registers, which are routine affairs, hence the unexplained delay of
19/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
15 years cannot be accepted. It would be impossible for the petitioner to remember the identity of witnesses whom he could summon to appear before the enquiring authority to support his case. Even If he could summon their presence, it would be a doubtful proposition whether they would be in a position to remember that happened more than 15 years back and help him in his defence. Further more, the petitioner may not be in a position to effectively cross-examine the witnesses to be examined on the side of the second respondent in support of the charges. Practically, it would be a doubtful proposition that either the prosecution witnesses or the defence witnesses would be in a position to remember the facts of the case and advance the case of either the department or the petitioner. Under these circumstances and on the facts and circumstances disclosed, I hold that the unexplained inordinate delay will constitute denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself that it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned charge memo must be struck down on
20/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
this ground alone. By weighing all the factors both for and against the petitioner/delinquent officer quashing the charge memo is just and proper in the circumstances”.
10........ In East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others reported in (2010)7 Supreme Court Cases 678, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“ 30.We may hasten to add that while application of mind to the material available to the competent authority is an essential pre-requisite for the making of a valid order, that requirement should not be confused with the sufficiency of such material to support any such order. Whether or not the material placed before the competent authority was in the instant case sufficient to justify the decision taken by it, is not in issue before us. That aspect may have assumed importance only if the competent authority was shown to have applied its mind to whatever material was available to it before cancelling the examination. Since application of mind as a thresh-hold requirement for a valid order is conspicuous by its absence the question whether the decision was reasonable having regard to the material before the authority
21/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
is rendered academic. Sufficiency or otherwise of the material and so also its admissibility to support a decision the validity whereof is being judicially reviewed may even otherwise depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be formulated in that regard nor do we propose to do so in this case.
31.So also whether the competent authority ought to have conducted an enquiry into or verification of the allegations before passing an order of cancellation is a matter that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It may often depend upon the nature, source and credibility of the material placed before the authority. It may also depend upon whether any such exercise is feasible having regard to the nature of the controversy, the constraints of time, effort and expense. But what is absolutely essential is that the authority making the order is alive to the material on the basis of which it purports to take a decision. It cannot act mechanically or under an impulse, for a writ court judicially reviewing any such order cannot countenance the exercise of power vested in a public authority except after due and proper application of mind. Any other view
22/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
would amount to condoning a fraud upon such power which the authority exercising the same holds in trust only to be exercised for a legitimate purpose and along settled principles of administrative law”.”
“For calling for explanation under rule 17 A of the Tamil Nadu, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules-
(a) framing charges under 17 B after lapses comes to notice - 15 days.
(b) For the accused officer to peruse records and to submit this written explanation - 30 days
(c) For appointment of enquiry, officer, wherever necessary after
23/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
receipt of explanation – 7days
(d) for the enquiry officer to complete enquiry and submit the enquiry report - 30 days
(f) for the Disciplinary Authority to take decision after the receipt of the enquiry officer report - 10 days.
The above instructions mandate that the disciplinary proceedings should be completed within the above said prescribed time. However, the authorities took a very long time to frame charges, which is contrary to the above guidelines.
also charge sheeted for the same offence was punished with lesser punishment, which was challenged by him and the impugned order passed against him was dismissed vide W.P.(MD)No.1128 of 2007 dated 14.03.2012, for the reason that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated belatedly. Therefore, we hold that there is no ground available to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
24/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.P., J.) 04.12.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No
LS/RM
25/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
26/27
W.A(MD).No.626 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
WA.(MD)No.626 of 2021
04.12.2024
27/27
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal against the Single Judge's order in a departmental disciplinary appeal is maintainable.
Whether the inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings and vague charges vitiate the disciplinary action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. P. GunasekaranExplained¶96
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran 2015-(2) SCC-610 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal GoyalExplained¶139
State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995 (2) S.C.C. 570 · Who else cites this
East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa RaoExplained¶152
East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010)7 Supreme Court Cases 678
Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
District Collector, Thoothukudi District
S.Sasi Sivanantham
C.V. Karthikeyan
R. Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
