1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12351 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Siva Raju ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, O/o.District Survey Office, Theni District. ... Respondent 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 pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.A10/5294/2007, dated 04.12.2009 issued on 25.05.2010 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to consider the promotion of the petitioner as Inspector of Survey on par with juniors with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi Govt. Advocate O R D E R The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo dated 25.05.2010 issued in Na.Ka.No.A10/5294/2007, on the ground that the impugned charge memo has been issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, with the delay of more than 12 years for an alleged occurrence took place between the years 1999 and 2000, hence it is pleaded, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005(4) CTC 403. 2. When the petitioner was serving as Deputy Inspector of Survey, Peraiyur, Madurai District, the respondent issued the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.05.2010 by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, on the allegation that there was an issuance of identity card for granting aid and assisting coconut growing agriculturists and during such issuance of identity card, there was a representation that a malpractice in issuing topo sketch for agriculturists. For the same incident, through out Tamil Nadu, a criminal and departmental proceedings were initiated against so many persons. The Government after perusal of the records in G.O.Ms.No.210, Agriculture (AA.II), Department, dated 09.10.2009, has decided to withdraw all the criminal cases registered against all the accused on the ground there were no proof to substantiate the allegations and after withdrawal of all the criminal cases, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The impugned charge memo has been issued with inordinate delay of 12 years without any reason whatsoever for the inordinate delay. This has caused great hardships and prejudice not only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to the petitioner but also to the Department to recall the particulars which are required to be placed by both sides before the disciplinary authority to take a further decision thereon. It was contended that in a similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.(MD).No.8074 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, while considering a similar issue, has come to the conclusion that there has been an unexplained inordinate delay in initiating the charge memo, hence such a delayed charge memo is liable to be quashed. One more order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.9911 to 9913 of 2001 dated 05.09.2011 also has been produced before me to say that there is no quarrel over the similarity of the facts to allow this writ petition. In yet another similar and identical occasion, when a charge memo was issued in the same Department under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, with inordinate delay of 9 years, the said charge memo was also found quashed, therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared in the said matters after taking notice for the respondent fairly submitted that similar disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Revenue Department for an alleged delinquency that had taken place 10 years ago has been already quashed by this Court on the basis of inordinate delay and no appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.P.(MD). Nos.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010. On that basis the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the same order. 3. Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent also has no quarrel to the said proposition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that a list of similar cases filed by similarly situated persons challenging the charge memo issued with inordinate delay and this Court in all the cases by applying the ratio of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005(4) CTC 403 has held that no charge memo can be issued with inordinate delay of 9 years, therefore for the reasons mentioned above the charge memo issued against the petitioner with inordinate delay of 12 years is quashed, as there is no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the respondent for issuing the impugned charge memo with inordinate delay. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, O/o.District Survey Office, Theni District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.37364 W.P.(MD)No.12351 of 2011 31.10.2011 akv RJ/25.11.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/