1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.11106 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Eswaran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi Division, Sivakasi. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to Government letter No.27103/AA-2/2005-18, dated 01.10.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar 1 and 2 Government Advocate ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, the first respondent herein, in Government Letter No.27103/AA-2/2005-18, dated 01.10.2010 by which, charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 2. According to the petitioner, he was recruited through Selection Committee and appointed as Village Administrative Officer and joined duty on 05.09.1982 in Melamadai Group, Sathur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. He is presently serving as Village Administrative Officer, Watrap Group, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. While so, the first respondent, vide Government Letter No.27103/AA-2/2005-18, dated 01.10.2010, 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 S.Kodikulam, Srivilliputhur Taluk, he has issued certificates with false particulars in the names of three persons as if they were lessees of original land owners, which facilitated traders and middlemen to sell copra in Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Srivilliputhur in procurement of copra between June 2000 and April 2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the reliefs stated supra. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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.No.210, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, 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 [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.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, 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. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned charge memo issued in Government letter No.27103/AA-2/2005-18, dated 01.10.2010, is set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi Division, Sivakasi. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.33701 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.11106 of 2011 SML PA/11.10.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/