1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.5831 of 2011 R.Janarthanan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Agriculture (AA-2) Department Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Secretary Revenue Department Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chennai – 5. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order made in Letter No.27533/AA-2/2006-21 dated 13.01.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same. For petitioner ...Mr.Pala.Ramasamy For Respondents ...Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Addl.Govt. Pleader ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the impugned charge memo of the first respondent made in Letter No.27533/AA-2/2006-21 dated 13.01.2011, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Vilachery Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. During the year 2000-2001, when he was working as a Village Administrative Officer, as there was no taker for purchase of copra and the price of copra has fallen to feet and in order to protect the coconut farmers, the Central Government announced a scheme of procurement of copra under minimum price support scheme through TANFED as nodal agency. The petitioner, who is a Village Administrative Officer, has recommended to issue identity cards, on the basis of the survey number, extent and ownership of the land, who reared coconut trees and not to the brokers and he has not committed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 any lapses. While so, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 has been issued against him by the first respondent on 13.01.2011. In the backdrop of the matter, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned charge memo dated 13.01.2011. 4. A similarly placed person, viz., L.Frederick Jayaseelan, has approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, challenging the order retaining him in service and this Court, after considering the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that there is an inordinate delay in issuing a charge memo and quashed the order of suspension and also the order retaining the petitioner therein in service. 5. In view of the above stated position and in view of the fact that the petitioner herein is also a similarly placed person, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memo, dated 13.01.2011, issued by the first respondent against the petitioner has to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Agriculture (AA-2) Department Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Secretary Revenue Department Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chennai – 5. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai,Madurai District. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.19239 W.P.(MD) No.5831 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 17.06.2011 RR PA/06.07.2011/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/