1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No. 13959 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 P.Natarajan, S/o.Mr.Ponnusamy, Village Administrative Officer, Merpanaikadu, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Petitioner Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL 1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the charge memo made in letter No.20904/CL1/2006-32 dated 01.11.2010 issued by the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner, who was appointed as Village Administrative Officer, on 13.09.1982, has worked in various villages and now working at Merpanaikadu, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District. While so, after ten years he was issued with the Charge Memo by the Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL 1) Department, in his letter dated 01.11.2010 with two charges for the alleged occurrence said to have taken place during the period between June 2000 and November 2000 when he was working at Neivathali Village in Aranthangi Taluk. 2. The charges show that he issued false particulars in identity cards in the names of non existing persons and existing persons with false survey numbers, extent of land, etc., which facilitated the traders and middlemen to sell copra in Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society, Aranthangi, during the3 period between June 2000 and November 2000. Subsequently, criminal cases were also initiated against the petitioner and others. After some time, the State Government has taken a policy decision to withdraw all the criminal cases throughout the State of Tamil Nadu against the subordinates in the Agricultural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Department, Cooperative Department and Revenue Department on the ground that there was a delay of more than ten years in issuance of charge memo, therefore, it would be impossible to collect evidence to substantiate their case before the criminal court. 3. When the Government issued G.O.No.210, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, dated 9.10.2009, taking a policy decision that the cases filed before the criminal court are not worthy to be proceeded, the same analogy will be applied to the cases pending before the Departments. On that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the Government has already taken a policy decision to withdraw all the criminal cases on the ground of huge delay in issuing the charge memo and that it would be highly impossible to collect any acceptable evidence to establish the criminal charges against the delinquent officer, the same reasoning would be equally applicable to the departmental proceedings as well. Accepting this reasoning, this Court in similar matters has quashed similar charge memo, which were issued belatedly with inordinate delay of more than 10 years. On that basis, he prayed to quash the impugned charge memo dated 01.11.2010 which was issued with a delay of 10 years. 4. In support of his submission, he relied upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.586 to 587 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 (P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board) followed by another order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009 (T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department,Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan,IPS, Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Chennai 28 and other) reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) and yet another order in the case of B.K.Gunasekaran Vs.State of T.N. reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 161 in W.P. No. 9856 of 2010. 5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the Government has filed a Writ Appeal against one of the orders, however the same was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that even that Writ Appeal also was dismissed. 6. However, the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate may not stand to any reason in view of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 and another order passed in W.A. No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009 quashing similar charge memo on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. When this Court has consistently passed uniform orders in copra cases quashing the charge memo on the ground that the Government has taken a stand to withdraw all the criminal cases for the reason that it would be impossible for them to establish the charges against the delinquent Government employees, the said reason would equally apply to the departmental proceedings as well. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In view of the above reasons, the present impugned charge memo which has been issued with a huge inordinate delay of 10 years is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To, The Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL 1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.43128 srm GH : 04.01.2012 : 3p/3c W.P.(MD)No. 13959 of 2011 08.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/