Dismissed¶38

The Director of Town Panchayats v. N.Thanasingh

Madras HC1 Jul 2025WA(MD)/1035/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay in issuance of charge memo; quashing of charge memo for gross delay and prejudice to delinquent; Director of Town Panchayats v. N.Thanasingh; W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 01.07.2025; Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973, rule 20(1) and rule 20(2); Executive Officer, Vilavoor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari; non-maintenance of registers; vigilance enquiry on malpractice vs register-keeping charge; Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565 distinguished; writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected CMPs closed.

What did the court decide?

Test laid down: the Writ Court will not quash a charge memo on the ground of delay if there is an explanation for the delay and the delay does not prejudice the delinquent. ¶37

The Director of Town Panchayats Vs N.Thanasingh — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge memo issued on 06.05.2019 against the respondent for alleged lapses during his 1999-2001 tenure as Executive Officer, Vilavoor Town Panchayat — already quashed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.13992 of 2019 — should remain quashed, notwithstanding the department's contention (resting on Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha) that delay in issuing a charge memo cannot be a ground for quashing where the disciplinary authority offers a convincing explanation.

¶16

Court's answer

Test laid down: the Writ Court will not quash a charge memo on the ground of delay if there is an explanation for the delay and the delay does not prejudice the delinquent.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

In the present case the delay in issuing the charge memo (for events of 1999-2001, memo issued 06.05.2019) is grossly belated, and the explanation given by the department is not convincing.

¶38

Key takeaways

Considering the nature of the charge and the fact that the cause of action dates back to 1999-2001, the writ petitioner would be gravely prejudiced and handicapped in defending himself if called upon to face the departmental proceedings some two decades later — relevant records would have gone missing, witnesses may not be available, and available witnesses' memories would have failed; the court recorded its finding that the delinquent would be acutely prejudiced.ratio¶33
The department's claimed explanation fails because the vigilance enquiry pertained to malpractice allegedly committed by the writ petitioner, whereas the charge on hand pertains only to maintenance of certain registers; accordingly, the court was not satisfied that there was no delay on the part of the department.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, coram G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar JJ., judgment authored by G.R. Swaminathan J., decided 01.07.2025): The Director of Town Panchayats appealed against the learned Single Judge's order in W.P.(MD)No.13992 of 2019 dated 20.11.2019, which had quashed a charge memo issued on 06.05.2019 against N. Thanasingh, former Executive Officer of Vilavoor Town Panchayat (Kanyakumari District) during 1999-2001. The charges alleged non-maintenance of the Water Supply Stock Register, Tool and Plants Register, History Sheet for Motors and Contractor Register (Rule 20(1)), and failure of integrity and devotion to duty (Rule 20(2)), under the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973. Invoking Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, the State argued that misconduct surfaced only in 2018 and that delay is not actionable where convincingly explained. The Bench accepted the general proposition but held that a charge memo will not be quashed for delay only where the delay is explained and non-prejudicial; here the delay was grossly belated, the departmental explanation unconvincing (the vigilance enquiry concerned malpractice, whereas the charges concerned mere register-keeping), and the delinquent would be acutely prejudiced in defending himself two decades on. Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4617 and 8885 of 2021

¶7

The Director of Town Panchayats, Directorate of Town Panchayats, Urban Administration Office Complex, 7th and 8th Floor, MRC Nagar, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs.

¶8

N.Thanasingh ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No. 13992 of 2019 dated 20.11.2019 on the file of this Court.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Government Pleader. For Respondent : Ms.J.Gayathri

¶11

1/6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021

¶14

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶15

The department is on appeal challenging the order of the learned

¶16

Single Judge quashing the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner.

¶17

2.The writ petitioner was working as Executive Officer, Vilavoor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District during 1999 – 2001. In respect of the said period, charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner on

¶18

06.05.2019. The charges read as follows:-

¶19

“ Charge No.1

¶20

You, Thiru.N.Thanasingh, while working as Executive Officer, Vilavoor Town Panchayat, Nagercoil Zone, Kanniyakumari District between 12.11.1999 to 5.09.2001 (now Executive Officer, Vilathikulam Town Panchayat, Thoothukudi District, Tirunelveli Zone) had not maintained Water Supply Stock Register, Tool and Plants Register, History Sheet for Motors, Contractor Register which were necessary maintained in the Vilavoor Town Panchayat. Further you failed to enter obsolete Motors in the stock Register, failed to enter the

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021

¶24

purchased Motor in the Tool and Plant Register, failed to maintain History Sheet for the installed Motors. Hence thereby you have violated rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973.

¶25

Charge No: 2

¶26

Thus you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to your duty and thereby violated rule 20(2) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct rule 1973.

¶27

Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.13992 of 2019. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.11.2019 quashed the charge memo and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶28

3.The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 (Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha) , the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the department came to be know about the misconduct committed by the writ petitioner only in the year 2018. A criminal case was registered against the writ

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021

¶32

petitioner. Immediately thereafter the charge memo has been issued. According to him, the delay in issuing the charge memo cannot be a ground for quashing the charge memo when the disciplinary authority is able to offer a convincing explanation.

¶33

4.No doubt, the proposition canvassed by the learned Additional Advocate General is beyond cavil. Considering the nature of the charge, the writ petitioner would be gravely prejudiced and handicapped in defending himself. When the cause of action dates to back to the years 1999 – 2001, the writ petitioner cannot effectively defend himself when he is called upon to face the departmental proceedings some two decades later. All the relevant records would have gone missing. The witnesses may not be available. Even if witnesses are available, their memory would have failed. It is also seen that the vigilance enquiry pertained to the malpractice allegedly committed by the writ petitioner. Whereas, the charge on hand pertains only to maintenance of certain registers. Therefore, we are not satisfied that there is no delay on the part of the department. We are equally satisfied that the writ petitioner would be prejudiced, if he is asked to face the enquiry on this charge. The Writ

¶34

4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021

¶37

Court will not quash a charge memo on the ground of delay if there is

¶38

explanation for the delay and the delay does not prejudice the delinquent. In this case, the delay in issuing the charge memo is grossly belated. The explanation given by the department is not convincing. We have also recorded our finding that the delinquent would be acutely prejudiced. Looked at from any angle, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed

¶39

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 01.07.2025

¶40

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶41

To:-

¶42

The Director of Town Panchayats, Directorate of Town Panchayats, Urban Administration Office Complex, 7th and 8th Floor, MRC Nagar, Chennai.

¶43

5/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis