S. Abdul Jaffer Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the office of the first respondent relating to the impugned order of suspension and charge memo issued by the first respondent in ROC No. A7/9868/2011 dated 30.01.2012 and Na.No.A7/9868/2011, dated 30.01.2012 respectively, and his consequential impugned order in ROC.No.A7/9868/2011, dated 30.01.2012 not allowing the petitioner to retire and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay all service, monetary and retirement benefits with arrears and interest.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.8450 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition is filed against the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.01.2012 and consequently direct the respondents to pay all service,

¶19

monetary and retirement benefits with arrears and interest.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Village Administrative Officer. A criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.28 of 2009 by the City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli. On 30.01.2012, he was kept under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued. He was not allowed to retire on 31.01.2012 but retained in service. The petitioner requested the first respondent to furnish the documents and the first respondent directed the second respondent on 04.10.2012 to furnish the documents. But those documents were not provided. Again on 10.01.2013, the first respondent directed the second respondent to furnish documents. Thereafter also, no action was taken.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.8450 of 2025

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no delay

¶25

on the part of the petitioner in participating in the enquiry but the departmental proceedings was not concluded till date. For the past 13 years, the petitioner has been retained in service, this is clear case of abuse of process of law.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submits that he will ascertain from the respondents whether the enquiry is concluded or not.

¶27

If enquiry is not concluded, there is no necessity to approach this Court now. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings are pending with the second respondent.

¶28

In view of the same, in our considered view, it is appropriate and reasonable to dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage without going into the merits of the case with the consent of both sides with a direction to the second respondent to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible to meet the ends of justice.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.8450 of 2025

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following

¶33

directions:

¶34

The second respondent is directed to furnish the documents

¶35

sought by the petitioner and as directed by the first respondent vide his letter, dated 14.10.2012 and 10.01.2013 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36