1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/8/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)Nos.9130 & 9131 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 S.Murugesan ... Petitioner in both the Writ petitions Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 3.The District Collector, Theni District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. ... Respondents in both the Writ petitions Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.9130 of 2011: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to impugned order of suspension passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings ROC.No.A4/2237/2008, dated 29.04.2008, and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.9131 of 2011: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to impugned order not permitting to retire from service passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings ROC.No.A4/2237/2008, dated 30.04.2008, and quash the same and further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.04.2008 with all service and monetary benefits. For petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy in both the Writ petitions For respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi, in both Writ petitions Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER In W.P.(MD).No.9130 of 2011, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 29.04.2008, suspending him from service on the ground that a prosecution has to be launched against him under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 167, 471, 409, 420 and 109 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in respect of the procurement of copra. 2.In W.P.(MD).No.9131 of 2011, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 30.04.2008, passed under fundamental Rule 56(1)(c) in not permitting him to retire, in view of the criminal case under contemplation. 3.As both the writ petitions arise out of the same facts, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 4.It is the case of the petitioner that when he was working as Village Administrative Officer. During 2000-2001, the vigilance authority has conducted an elaborate investigation and collected certain details about the mode of issuing adangal and chitta extracts. Alleging that prosecution has to be levelled against the petitioner and others, several persons were suspended. The petitioner was one such person, consequently, he was not permitted to retire on 30.04.2008, when he attained the age of superannuation, on the ground that criminal case has to be launched. Thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.210 Agriculture (Vey.Ni.2) Department, dated 09.10.2009, in which, the Government dropped criminal action against all the persons alleged to have been involved in the allegations relating to procurement and disbursement of copra under Minimum Price Support Scheme. The Government also decided to take disciplinary action. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions, contending inter alia that when the Government have decided to drop all the criminal proceedings and inasmuch as there was no departmental action against the petitioner, consequent to dropping of criminal action in G.O.Ms.No.210 Agriculture (Vey.Ni.2) Department, dated 09.10.2009, the impugned proceedings have to be set aside. The petitioner has also relied on orders of this Court made in W.P.(MD).Nos.3530 & 3531 of 2011, dated 17.06.2011. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in G.O.Ms.No. 210, Agriculture (Vey.Ni.2) Department, dated 09.10.2009, the Government have taken a decision that for the irregularities said to have occurred in the year 2000-2001, prosecution, after 8 to 9 years, is unwarranted and in all the cases, where prosecution have already been initiated, they were directed to be withdrawn. Even the departmental action initiated against persons involved in the irregularities have been quashed by this Court, in W.P.(MD).Nos.3530 & 3531 of 2011 dated 17.06.2011. In the case on hand, according to the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. When the Government itself have taken a decision that prosecution, after 8 to 9 years, is unwarranted and in the absence of any criminal case registered against the petitioners, the impugned orders of suspension and not permitting the petitioner to retire on the grounds that the prosecution was under contemplation, as on 29.04.2008, have be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.04.2008 with all service and monetary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.The Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 3.The District Collector, Theni District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. +1 CC to Mr.A.Thirumurthy, Advocate, Sr.No.27945 gcg W.P.(MD)Nos.9130 & 9131 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 17/08/2011 TR : 08.09.2011 : 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/