1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9396 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 P.Maruthamuthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner, and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection, (CLI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the following orders: (i)Charge memo in Letter No.29144/AA-2/2005-27 dated 27.07.2010 issued by the 1st respondent. (ii)Charge memo in Letter No.39045/AA-2/2005-29 dated 30.09.2010 issued by the 1st respondent. (iii)Charge memo in Letter No.20904/CL-1/2006-19 dated 01.11.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent. (iv)Suspension order made in R.C.No.A-1/2192/2011 dated 29.06.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent. (v)Consequential retention order made in R.C.No.A1/2232/2011 dated 30.06.2011 issued by the 3rd 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 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Go Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the the following orders: (i)Charge memo in Letter No.29144/AA-2/2005-27 dated 27.07.2010 issued by the 1st respondent. (ii)Charge memo in Letter No.39045/AA-2/2005-29 dated 30.09.2010 issued by the 1st respondent. (iii)Charge memo in Letter No.20904/CL-1/2006-19 dated 01.11.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent. (iv)Suspension order made in R.C.No.A-1/2192/2011 dated 29.06.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent. (v)Consequential retention order made in R.C.No.A1/2232/2011 dated 30.06.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent. and consequently, to 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. 2.According to the petitioner, he entered the service as a Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner was issued a charge memo vide letter No.29144/AA2/2005-27 dated 27.07.2010 by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Chennai / 1st respondent herein, by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, alleging that when he was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Aliyanilai, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudhukottai District, during 2000-2001, had issued bogus coconut grower identity card No.(1)2308 in the name of G.Elangovan, S/o Govindan, Aranthangi and (2) 550 in the name of L.Madhivanan, S/o Lakshmanan, Aranthangi and used the same in the commission of creating false documents, as if, the above individuals had sold copra at PACB, Thennangudi North and by forging the signatures in the documents,, aided the accused in selling the copra at PACB, Thennangudi North and thereby, violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 3.The petitioner was also issued second charge memo vide letter No.39045/AA2/2005-29 dated 30.09.2010 by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA- 2) Department, Chennai / 1st respondent, by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, alleging that when the petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Aliyanilai, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudhukottai District during 2000-2001, had issued bogus coconut grower identity card No.1023 in the name of Thangappan, S/o Puyalthurai, Aranthangi and used the same in the commission of creating false documents, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 if, the above individuals had sold copra at PACB, Paingal and by forgoing the signatures in the documents, aided the accused in selling the copra at PACB, Thennangudi North and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 4.Again, the petitioner was issued charge memo vide letter No.20904/CL-1 /2006-19 dated 01.11.2010 by the Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CL 1) Department, Chennai / 2nd respondent, by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, alleging that when the petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Aliyanilai, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudhukottai District from 30.06.1999 to 22.07.2002, had issued false particulars in the identity card in the names of non existing persons and existing persons with false survey numbers, extent of land etc., which facilitated traders and middlemen to sell copra in Agricultural Producers' Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., in Aranthangi in procurement of copra made between June to November 2000 and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District / 3rd respondent vide proceedings made in Rc.No.A1/2192/2011 dated 29.06.2011 has suspended the petitioner from service by invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,, on the ground that the petitioner has issued false certificate for the procurement of copra. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CL 1) Department, Chennai / 2nd respondent by referring to the above stated suspension order, by invoking Fundamental Rules 56 (1) C, extended the service of the petitioner without permitting to retire from service, on the ground of grave charges are pending, vide proceedings made in Rc.No.A1/2232/2011 dated 30.06.2011 6.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. The impugned charge memo has been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. 7.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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 reported in 2010(7) MLJ 161. 8.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." 9.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. 10.Considering the submissions of both sides and after going through the materials on record and on perusal of the order made in the abovesaid 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. 11.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, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner, and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection, (CLI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 28720 W.P.(MD).No.9396 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011. 22.08.2011 nbj SMA/13.9.2011/5C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/