1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8545 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 M.Alagesan, Village Administrative Officer, (Retired) : Petitioner Vs. 1.Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to order made in Letter No.2234/Ser7(2)/2011-4, dated 17.02.2011 passed by the first respondent as well as the consequential proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.A6/1104/2011, dated 28.02.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, monetary as well as service with appropriate interest till the payment within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Pala Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, the first respondent herein, in Letter No.2234/Ser7(2)/2011-4, dated 17.02.2011 as well as the consequential proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District, the second respondent herein, in Na.Ka.No.A6/1104/2011, dated 28.02.2011, by which, disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 2. According to the petitioner, he entered service as a Village Administrative Officer at Ayakudi Village, Palani Taluk on 24.05.1984 and he worked in various villages viz., Palani, Vedasandur, Dindigul and Athur. While so, the first respondent, vide Letter No.2234/Ser7(2)/2011-4, dated 17.02.2011, issued a charge memo by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the ground that when the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at Kuttathupatti Village, Dindigul District from 01.08.1996 to 03.08.2002, he has issued two certificates in the name of Nagarajan, with false https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 particulars without making inspection and without verifying survey number of land, chitta, adangal, etc., which facilitated traders and middlemen to sell copra in Natham Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Natham in procurement of copra made between June 2000 and August 2000. In the meantime, he attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011 and that the second respondent, by proceedings dated 28.02.2011, in Na.Ka.No.A6/1104/2011, permitted the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation on the afternoon of 28.02.2011, without prejudice to the charges pending against him. Challenging the charge memo and the consequential proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that earlier, criminal cases were registered against the subordinates in the Agriculture Department and Revenue Department and that the same were withdrawn as per G.O. 210, Agriculture Department AA-2, dated 09.10.2009. Pursuant to which, the impugned disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The impugned charge memo has been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in 2005(4) CTC 403, in W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007; in W.A.No. 610 of 2008, dated 06.03.2009; in T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department, Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan, IPS Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Ch-28 and other, reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil); and in B.K.Gunasekaran V. State of T.N. reported in 2010(7) MLJ 161. 5. Attention of this Court has also been invited to an order made in W.P.No. 8924 of 2006 & 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010 in L.Frederick Jayaseelan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others), wherein this Court, after considering the facts and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (stated supra) and other cases, has quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners therein. At paragraph No.8 of the order, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:- "In view of the judicial dictum laid down by the Apex Court, applying the same to the facts of the present case, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the order of suspension as well as the impugned charge memo are illegal. Since the respondent has not chosen to explain the reason for delay, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memo is liable to be set aside." 6. There is no quarrel over the similarity of the facts, with the one stated supra. Even Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, fairly submitted that disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Agricultural Department for the alleged delinquency, has been quashed in many cases. No appeal seemed to have been filed against the order made in W.P.Nos. 8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. Considering the submissions of both sides and after going through the materials on record and on perusal of the order made in the aforesaid Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos. 8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the orders stated supra. The facts are similar and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay. 8. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned orders are set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to send the pension proposals, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader , SR.No. 25859 SML Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8545 of 2011 Dated:- 02.08.2011 TR : 17.08.2011: 3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/