1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/08/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition(MD)No.9548 of 2011 S.V.Mahalingam ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the disciplinary action initiated by the District Collector, Sivagangai in his R.C.A.-1/38366/95 dated 26.09.1998 and for which retention in service was ordered by the Government in G.O. (2-D) No.107 Revenue (Ser III(2) Department dated 30.05.1997 on merits within a stipulated time frame that may be fixed by this Court. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Visvalingam For respondents 1 and 2 ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi Spl. Government Pleader O R D E R Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, who is aged about 73 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1997, has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein, to dispose of the disciplinary action initiated by the District Collector, Sivagangai, in R.C.A.-1/38366/95 dated 26.09.1998, under which, he has been placed under suspension and retained in service as per the orders of the Government in G.O.(2-D) No.107, Revenue (Ser III(2) Department, dated 30.05.1997. 3. Pleadings disclose that on 24.05.1997, the District Collector, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings No.A-1/38366/95, suspended the petitioner and retention in service was also ordered by the Government in G.O.(2-D) No.107 Revenue (Ser III(2) Department dated 30.05.1997 and that he would not be permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequent to retirement and after one year and three months from the date of his superannuation, the District Collector vide a memo No. A1/38366/95 dated 26.09.1998, framed charges against him, for which, an explanation has also been submitted on 26.06.2000 and that the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report on 12.02.2001. 4. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings initiated is for the occurrence of the year 1978 and 1987 and that there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 is an inordinate delay. Nevertheless, he subjected himself to the enquiry proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though, the enquiry report has been submitted as early as on 12.02.2001 and that the respondents 1 and 2 have not passed any orders so far and consequently, he has been kept under prolonged suspension from 1997, for nearly 14 years. Ventilating his grievance, the petitioner has also made a representation dated 13.09.2010 stating that on account of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he has been put to financial constraints. Unable to bear the agony, he has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief, stated supra. 5. Material on record shows that though the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 24.05.1997 by the District Collector, Sivagangai District and consequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1998, for which the enquiry report has also been submitted on 12.02.2001. As rightly contended, the prolonged suspension for nearly 14 years, would certainly cause agony and hardship to the petitioner. Pleading discloses that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1997. 14 years have lapsed and still, the disciplinary proceedings have not been completed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a failure on the part of the respondents in passing orders on the disciplinary proceedings. No sooner, the disciplinary proceedings are completed and if any further explanation is required, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have obtained the same and passed orders, as expeditiously as possible. Keeping the petitioner under suspension and protracting the disciplinary proceedings would cause hardship and agony to the petitioner, who has been languishing for nearly 14 years. Failure on the part of the respondents is apparent on the face of record. 6. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to pass orders on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Sivagangai District, in R.C.A-1/38366/95 dated 26.09.1998 within a period of four weeks from today, if there is no other impediment. It is made clear that the first respondent shall pass orders within the stipulated time to avoid further litigation, considering the long delay. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The District Collector Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.29030 Writ Petition(MD)No.9548 of 2011 24.08.2011 RR/RJ/25.8.11 (IT) 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/