IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Writ Petition No.23909 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 K.Kanji ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Transport II Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy 20. ... Respondent Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, G.A. O R D E R The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the charge memo No.74749/A3/2004 dated 22.09.2004 passed by the third respondent and also the consequential order issued vide letter No.93835/Tr.II/2006- 12 dated 17.05.2007 passed by the first respondent. The petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuant to aforesaid charge memo. 2. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II on 18.04.1988 and posted in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli. The petitioner thereafter promoted as Motor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vehicle Inspector, Grade I and posted in the office of Regional Transport Office, Tuticorin. On 11.03.2005, he was transferred to Regional Transport Office from Srirangam to Trichy and thereafter, to the office of the Joint Transport Commissioner. The next channel of promotion of the petitioner is to the post of Regional Transport Officer. 3. In the affidavit, it is pleaded that in pursuant to the charge memo issued to the petitioner, the enquiry Officer has already submitted his enquiry report to the competent authority exonerating the petitioner from charges. Inspite of the fact that more than three years have elapsed after submission of enquiry report, no decision has been taken by the competent authority, which is defeating the right of the promotion to the petitioner. It is clear from the order passed, denying promotion to the petitioner, due to pendency of the departmental proceedings. 4. In support of the case, that the proceedings are liable to be quashed, the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and others 2008(6) M.L.J. 139 (SC) wherein charge sheet which was issued after nine years of occurrence and thereafter, show cause notice proposing punishment was issued after seven years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unexplained delay of nine years vitiated the enquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of trial Court in quashing the charge sheet and the order of punishment. 5. The reason for quashing the proceedings by the hon'ble Supreme Court that enquiry was initiated after nine years of incident, whereas in the case of the petitioner, it was only after three years. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was prejudiced on account of delay in holding enquiry, rather positive stand taken by the petitioner is that he has been exonerated from the charges, which shows that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in conduct of enquiry. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore is not remotely applicable to the facts of this case. 6. The petitioner however is fully justified in seeking direction to the respondents to take immediate decision on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. 7. The only explanation given by the learned counsel for the State in not taking final decision is that there are allegation against other employees also and the proceedings against them are pending. It is also the stand of learned State counsel that in view of Rule 9A of Tamilnadu Civil Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, joint enquiry is to be held against all. 8. The explanation on the face of it misconceived. Once enquiry has been completed against delinquent, who has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exonerated by the enquiry officer, it is the duty of the competent authority to take a final decision, which cannot be deferred only on account of pending enquiry against other employees. 9. Admittedly, right of the petitioner for being considered for further promotion is deferred only because of pendency of the enquiry, in which the petitioner already stand exonerated by the enquiry officer. The action of the competent authority therefore is depreciated. The employees cannot be allowed to be treated in the manner, the petitioner has been treated. The action of the respondent can only damage the moral employees. 10. For the reasons stated, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to take decision on the enquiry report forthwith and also consider the claim of the petitioner, for further promotion. 11. The needful is directed to be done within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. The petitioner shall also entitled to cost of this petition which is assessed as Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). The State will be at liberty to recover the amount from the official/officials found guilty of delay in taking decision. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vaan To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Transport II Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy 20. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.6768 W. P. No.23909 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 BVR (CO) RH (15.2.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/