1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8262 of 2011 M.Rajasekaran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to arrange for the completion of enquiry within a specified time frame and further, directing the first respondent to dispose off the disciplinary action initiated by the second respondent in his memo No.Ser 2(4)46550/09-2, dated 22.04.2010 on merits within a specified time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, directing the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai, the second respondent herein, to arrange for completion of enquiry, within a specified time and further, prayed for a direction to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the first respondent herein, to pass orders on the disciplinary proceedings initiated in Memo No.Ser 2(4)46550/09-2, dated 22.04.2010. 2. Pleadings disclose that alleging the petitioner has incurred revenue loss to the Government in an assignment of 4.21 acres of land to private parties in Udayachi Group in Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District, without following the Revenue Standing Order 21 and approved the draft and put up a note for the subject, not related to him, a charge memorandum has been issued. As the same could not be completed, before he could attain the age of superannuation, the Government have issued orders in G.O.(2D)No.259, Revenue [Ser-2(2)] Department, dated 30.04.2010, not permitting him to retire from service under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. Subsequently, proceedings have been issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration in Ser.2 (4)/46550/2009, dated 08.06.2010, appointing Thiru.Santhosh K.Misra, I.A.S., District Collector, Kancheepuram as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and Mr.Karthikeyan, District Revenue Officer, who was also placed under suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that explanation has already been submitted refuting the charges and as on today, the enquiry officer appointed earlier has been shifted from Kancheepuram District and as such, there is no progress in the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings initiated, after nearly 22 years, from the alleged occurrence, is kept in cold storage and in the above said circumstances, the petitioner has come https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 forward with the present Writ Petition seeking the relief as stated supra. 3. From the above pleadings, it could be deduced that though the petitioner is willing to participate in the enquiry proceedings, action has not been taken promptly and in the result, the disciplinary proceedings are pending for a long time. The Courts have consistently held that inordinate delay in initiation and completion of disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to a Government servant. 4. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader was put on notice. 5. It is not a case where records have to be collected from various sources. Since the enquiry officer has been shifted to some other place, the respondents ought to have appointed another enquiry officer. Admittedly, there is no order of stay of the disciplinary proceedings obtained from this Court. Even assuming that there was any Writ Petition filed before this Court challenging the charge memorandum and pending consideration, that would not restrict or curtail the powers of the respondents in proceeding with the departmental enquiry, as there is no interim order, restraining them from proceeding with the enquiry. 6. In the above said circumstances, though the learned Special Government Pleader sought for a longer time for disposal of the enquiry and for passing of final orders on the disciplinary proceedings, this Court is not inclined to grant a longer time. However, a direction is issued to the second respondent to appoint an enquiry officer immediately, with specific directions to complete the enquiry, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When the petitioner has volunteered to participate in the enquiry proceedings, he shall not protract the same, except for bona fide cause. On completion of the enquiry proceedings, the report shall be forwarded to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein, who shall pass orders on the enquiry proceedings initiated by the second respondent in memo No.Ser 2(4)46550/09-2, dated 22.04.2010, within one month from the date of receipt of such report, from the second respondent. It is made clear that if for any bona fide reasons, orders could not be passed by the first respondent, within the stipulated time, that will not clothe any right to the petitioner to seek for any relief of deemed completion of the disciplinary proceedings. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.24815 Sml : SR : 27.07.2011 : 2p/4c : IT Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8262 of 2011 Dated:- 25.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/