1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13941 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 P.R.Ramkumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of Municipal Adminstration, (Now Commissioner of Municipal Administration), Chennai-5. 2. The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Madurai. 3. (*) The Managing Director, TWAD Board, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents (*)-Deleted as per the order of this court dated 13.12.11 made by TRJ Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memorandum issued by the first respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.12378/2008/OP3-6 dated 29.08.2009 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For R1 : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan O R D E R The present Writ Petition is directed against the charge memo dated 29.08.2009 and that was issued only on 22.11.2011, on three grounds that the impugned charge memo is devoid of any clarity for the reason that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in Annexure-II. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the alleged incident took place in the year 2003, with an inordinate delay of seven years, the first respondent has issued the impugned charge memo on 29.08.2009. Hence, on the ground of inordinate delay of seven years in issuing the charge memo, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Thirdly, it was added that the petitioner is one of the co-delinquents like https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 A.Mathuram, against whom, when a similar charge memo was issued, the same charge memorandum dated 29.08.2009 also came to be quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.624 of 2010 by order dated 05.10.2010. On that basis, it was further contended that when a similar charge memo issued against the four others delinquents were quashed by this Court, the present charge memo issued against the petitioner, who is one among the co-delinquents, is entitled to get the same benefit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset made a request regarding the statement that the third respondent, the Managing Director of TWAD Board, Chennai is not a necessary party. Therefore, the learned counsel said that he is not pressing the relief against the third respondent. On that basis, the name of the third respondent is deleted. 3. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent in reply has submitted that though a similar charge memo dated 29.08.2009 issued by the first respondent, the Director of Municipal Administration, (Now Commissioner of Municipal Administration), Chennai, has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above mentioned Writ Appeal (MD) No.624 of 2010 on 05.10.2010, on the ground that there are no sufficient particulars available relating to the charges, the Department has already filed a Special Leave Petition. However, it is not brought to the notice of this Court what happened to the Special Leave Petition against the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.624 of 2010 on 05.10.2010. 4. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner Mr.P.R.Ramkumar is admittedly one among the 19 co-delinquents against whom the first respondent has issued the similar charge memo dated 29.08.2009, I am bound by the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.624 of 2010 dated 05.10.2010. It is also relevant to extract paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the order passed in Writ Appeal No.624 of 2010, which are given as under: "9. On the face of the Annexure-II, statements of allegation, when there are no particulars available relating to the charges, in our considered view the learned Judge ought to have considered the same since the question of delay is only incidental. It is only in case where charges are perfectly framed, it is open to the court to go into other aspect of delay whether it causes prejudice to the delinquent or the delay is contributable to the conduct of delinquent himself. In the present case, inasmuch as the learned Judge has not gone into the main aspect of the validity of the charges itself and proceeded to discuss the delay only, we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion arrived by the learned Judge on the ground of delay. Inasmuch as we are satisfied that the charges on the face of it have not been properly explained, we do not propose to go into the question of delay at all. Considering the aspect of the judgment referred to above and on the basis of the fact that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 charges are not properly explained in the statements of allegation in Annexure-II, we inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and accordingly the order of the learned Single Judge stands set aside and the impugned charge memo is also set aside on the ground that the charges have not been properly explained in the statements of allegation in Annexure-II, which resulted in gross detriment to the delinquent namely the petitioner to give proper explanation. 10. In such view of the matter, we also constrained to find as on date there are no materials available on record in respect of the charges. In view of the same, the writ appeal stands allowed and the order of the learned Judge stands set aside and impugned charge memo in the writ petition stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs." 5. A mere reading of the above mentioned two paragraphs goes to show that the charges levelled against the petitioner on the face of it have not been properly explained. More than that, the impugned charge memo dated 29.08.2009 have been admittedly issued to the petitioner only on 22.11.2011. It is prima facie clear that the impugned charge memo dated 29.08.2009 issued against the petitioner is relating to the alleged incident took place in the year 2003. Therefore, as there has been an unexplained inordinate delay of 6 years, on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in M.V.Bijalani v. Union of India & others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, this Court is also inclined to follow the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.624 of 2010 dated 05.10.2010. As a result, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned charge memo dated 29.08.2009 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Director of Municipal Adminstration, (Now Commissioner of Municipal Administration), Chennai-5. 2. The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.B.Saravanan, Advocate (SR.No.43648) +1 CC to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate (SR.No.43737) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.43614) W.P.(MD)No.13941 of 2011 13.12.2011 akv NSV/20.12.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/