1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No. 12772 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Subramanian ... 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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to Government Letter No.27103/AA-2/2005- 15 dated 01.10.2010 and the proceedings No. ROC A-2/3565/08 dated 28.05.2008 of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to send pension proposals within a specified time frame that may be fixed by the Hon'ble High Court. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Maharajan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Spl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner, who was appointed as Village Administrative Officer, on 11.08.1982, at Iluppayurani Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tirunelveli District, continued the same post and lastly serving as Village Administrative Officer, T.Managaseri till his date of superannuation i.e., on 31.05.2008 till his date of superannuation on 31.05.2008. But, he was not allowed to retire on 31.05.2008 and placed under suspension by the second respondent in his proceedings No.ROC A- 2/3565/08 date 28.05.2008. While so, after ten years, he was issued with Charge Memo by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, vide his letter dated 01.10.2010 with two charges for the alleged occurrence said to have been taken place during the period between June 2000 and April 2001 when he was working at Ilandaikulam Village in Tirunelveli District. 2. The charges show that he issued certificates with false particulars in the names of three persons as if they were lessees of original land owners which facilitated the traders and middlemen to sell copra in Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Srivilliputhur, in procurement of copra made between June 2000 and April https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2001. 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 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 the 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 the 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 and the proceedings of the second respondent date 28.05.2008. 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 hold 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 on W.A. No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009. When this Court has consistently passed an uniform order 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 due to inordinate delay to establish the charges against the delinquent Government employees, the said reason would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 equally apply to the departmental proceedings as well. 7. In that view of the matter, the present impugned charge memo which has been issued with huge inordinate delay of 10 years is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, finding no sufficient reason to condone the delay for issuance of charge memo, that too, with a delay of two and half years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, this Court is bound to follow the earlier order passed by this Court as well as the orders passed by the Division Bench. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the delayed impugned charge memo with inordinate delay of 10 years and the proceedings of the second respondent date 28.05.2008 are quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is needless to mention that since the petitioner retired from service, the second respondent is directed send pension proposals of the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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 Special Government Pleader, SR.No.42271 skn GH : 04.01.2012 : 3p/4c W.P.(MD)No. 12772 of 2011 and MP.(MD).1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/