1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.10.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)Nos. 12101 to 12104 of 2011 Sheik Mohammad ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 12101 of 2011 S.S.Senthil Arumugam .. Petitioner in W.P.No. 12102 of 2011 P.Rajendhran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.12103 of 2011 P.Malliswari ... Petitioner in W.P. No. 12104 of 2011 Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Transport)Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 2.The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to drop all further action on the departmental enquiry pending in T.D.P. Case No. 15/2007 dated 29.6.2007 formulated by the second respondent herein in so far as the petitioner is concerned and exonerate the petitioner from the charges in the light of the decision of this Court rendered in W.P. Nos. 7043/2008, 4068/2009 and 15297/2010 dated 4.3.2011 by considering the petitioner's representations dated 28.3.2011, 28.3.2011, 28.3.2011 and 7.4.2011 within a stipulated time as deemed fit and proper and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. For Petitioners : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan Special Government Pleader C O M M O N O R D E R These four Writ Petitions are filed seeking common relief to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to drop all further action on the departmental enquiry pending in T.D.P.Case No.15/2007 dated 29.6.2007 formulated by the second respondent-the Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli, in so far as the petitioners are concerned and exonerate them from the charges in the light of the decision of this Court rendered in W.P. Nos. 7043/2008, 4068/2009 and 15297/2010 dated 4.3.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.3.2011 and 7.4.2011. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners suffered a departmental proceedings on the basis of the Charge Memo issued against them including other Officers for allegation of obtaining illegal gratification ranging from Rs.10/- to Rs.4300/- through touts namely Shiyam @ Subbaiah @ Samuel Subbaiah, Jeyaseelan, P.Selvaraj, Baskaran, Hariharan, Ramamoorthy, M.Ganesan, John Kennedy, Vijayakumar, N.Rajasekaran, Gopal and Ravichandran as a motive or reward for discharging official duties in respect of the day to day transactions namely Registration of Vehicles, issuing of driving licenses, issuing of fitness certificates, transfer of ownership of vehicles and granting permission etc. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Firstly, the Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Trichy, on 29.06.2007 after an inordinate delay of four years from the date of alleged incident of illegal gratification on 10.9.2003 has formulated a charge in T.D.P. Case No.15/2007 against 11 officers from Dispatch Clerk to Regional Transport Officer. Though the allegation was dated 10.09.2003, to formulate the charge, the Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Trichy, took nearly four years. Thus, seven years have lapsed from the date of the alleged incident. Further, the enquiry was also not concluded. In view of the inordinate delay in conducting the enquiry, writ petitions were filed in W.P.Nos.7043 of 2008, 4068 of 2009 and 15297 of 2010 challenging the issuance of the charge memo on the ground of inordinate delay. This Court, by order dated 04.03.2011, taking note of the inordinate delay, held that continuation of proceedings even after a long delay would be a mere wastage of time and misuse of process of Court and by holding so issued writ of certiorari quashing the charge sheets with a further direction to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of similarly placed persons for promotion in accordance with law. 4. Under these circumstances, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners also approached the first respondent herein by way of written representations stating that when common charge sheet issued against similarly placed co-delinquents were challenged on the ground of vagueness, the said charge sheets were quashed on the ground of inordinate delay and vagueness, therefore, the benefit of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.7043 of 2008, 4068 of 2009 and 15297 of 2010, dated 04.03.2011, shall be made applicable to the co-delinquent officers. But, the said representations made by the petitioners were not considered. As a result, they were constrained to file these writ petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader. 6. By consent of both sides, these writ petitions itself are taken up for final disposal. 7. When this Court has already considered a similar prayer by passing order on 04.03.2011 in W.P.Nos.7043 of 2008, 4068 of 2009 and 15297 of 2010, there is no impediment for the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representations, dated 28.03.2011. Therefore, this Court without going into the merits of the matter directs the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representations made by the petitioners on 28.03.2011 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Transport)Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 2.The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli. +1CC TO MR.RAVI SHANMUGAM, ADVOCATE SR : 36535 Ses SR : 16.11.2011 : 3p/4c W.P.(MD)Nos.12101 to 12104 of 2011 21.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/