1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19/8/2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9330 of 2011 A. Ramanathan ... 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 Madurai Madurai 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 suspension order made in ROC.No.A/9993/2004 dated 28/7/2004 as well as the consequential order made in ROC.No.A/9993/2004 dated 28/7/2004 passed by the second respondent and the charge memo made in Letter No.27533/AA-2/2006 – 19 dated 13/1/2011 issued by the first 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 stipulated time. For Petitioner : A. Ramanathan (Party-in-person) For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Government Advocate O R D E R 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 Letter No.A/9993/2004 dated 28/7/2004, by which, the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 2. According to the petitioner, he entered the service as a Village Administrative Officer in the year 1982. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010. Earlier, the respondent respondent, vide proceedings dated 28/7/2004, suspended him from service with effect from 31/7/2004 by invoking Rule 17 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and he was not allowed to retire on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 31/7/2004. Lateron, the Government framed charges, alleging that, the Village Administrative Officer at Melakkal, Madurai District had issued false certificates and issued identity cards in the names of fictitious persons which facilitated middle men and traders to sell copra in MU-5, Vadipatti Agricultural Producers' Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Sholavandan, Madurai District between August 2000 and June 2001. The petitioner has challenged the charge memo mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. 3. 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. 4. 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." 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 send the pension proposals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Agriculture (AA-2) Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai, Madurai District + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.28360 W.P.(MD).No.9330 of 2011 19/8/2011 mvs. RJ/29.8.11 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/