1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD)No.227 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. 3.The Enquiry Officer, P.A.to District Collector, Karur (Noon Meal), Karur District. ... Appellants Vs. N.R.Rajendran ... Respondent Prayer: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.5995 of 2007. To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamust, calling for records relating to the enquiry report, dated 14.01.1999 submitted by the third respondent and the consequential proceedings made in Letter No.17806/E6/97-31, dated 20.05.2003 and letter No.17806/E6/97-37, dated 22.03.2005 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay the regular pension to the petitioner with all occurred benefits. For Appellant : Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.06.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.5995 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition filed by the respondent herein, quashing the impugned proceedings dated 20.05.2003 and 22.03.2005 and consequently, directing the appellant herein to settle the terminal benefits due and payable to the respondent. 2.The respondent herein was originally appointed as a Gramasevak in the Rural Development Department from 02.01.1958. During the year 1989, the respondent was promoted as Block Development Officer and posted at Panchayat Union Office, Lalgudi, Trichy District. When the respondent was about to retire from service with effect from 30.09.1993 and on that date he was working as Block Development Officer at Panchayat Union Office, Perambalur. The 2nd appellant by proceedings No.87408/93/DPC II.3 dated 27.09.1993 framed 3 charges as against the respondent alleging that he has failed to take care of custody of important cash book, failed to produce the books of accounts to the higher officers in spite of repeated request for the review meeting and that he has not maintained devotion to the duties and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Service Conduct Rules. 3.Pending the above said charges, the 1st appellant by G.O.(2D)No.157 Rural Development Department, dated 30.09.1993 has not permitted the respondent to retire from his service. The respondent’s salary has also been reduced to the amount of provisional pension with effect from 01.10.1993. The respondent had submitted his explanation, denying all the charges. But the 1st appellant having not satisfied with the explanation, conducted enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer on completion of enquiry submitted a report dated 30.08.1996 holding that charges No.1 and 2 were not proved and also made a recommendation to reconsider the charge No.3. But, the appellant neither accepted the findings of the enquiry officer nor rejected the same. On the other hand, a fresh enquiry was ordered inspite of the objections raised by the respondent. The subsequent enquiry officer submitted another enquiry report dated 14.01.1999 contrary to the enquiry report dated 30.08.1996 holding that all the charges were proved. 4.On the receipt of the said enquiry report, the appellant issued a second show-cause notice by his proceedings No.17806/E-6/97- 31 dated 20.05.2003 called upon the respondent to showcause with regard to the findings of the enquiry officer and also proposed to imposed a punishment of cut in pension to a sum of Rs.50/- per month for a period of 6 months as penalty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.In the meantime, the appellant in G.O.(2D) 148, dated 22.03.2003 revoked the order of suspension and further permitted the 1st respondent to retire from service with effect from 30.09.1993 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The appellant also by his proceedings No.17806/E6/97-37, dated 22.03.2005 has arrived at a provisional conclusion to impose a punishment of cut in pension at Rs.50/- per month for a period of 6 months and also called upon the respondent to submit his explanation for proposed punishment. The respondent has also submitted an explanation to the 2nd showcause notice, stating that he is not responsible for the incident and some other person was in service at the relevant point of time and he alone was responsible for the allegation of non-production of records for verification. The respondent has also submitted a representation on 18.07.2006 called upon the appellant to withdraw the proposed punishment. But, inspite of the receipt of the communication, no action has been taken by the appellant to redress the respondent’s grievance. Hence, he filed the Writ petition to set aside the proceedings dated 20.05.2003 and also 22.03.2005 issued by the 1st appellant. 6.On consideration of the submissions made on either side, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/Government. 7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 8.It is the case of the respondent that when the enquiry office has submitted a report, stating that the charges 1 and 2 are not proved, the 1st appellant without following the mandatory procedure once again ordered re-enquiry after the delay of 10 years and imposed a punishment of cut in pension. Per contra, it is the submission of the appellant that due to administrative delay 14 years delay is occurred because of bifurcation of Trichy District. But, we are of the opinion that when an enquiry officer has already come to a conclusion that the charges 1 and 2 were not proved and also made a recommendation to reconsider the charge No.3, the question of once again appointing another enquiry officer for the same charges, without following the procedure is totally un-warranted. Moreover, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent the proposed punishment is made after a lapse of 14 years and the respondent is aged about 71 years at the time of filing writ petition. Hence, we are of the opinion that from the date of retirement, the respondent was put to continuous mental agony on account of the conduct of the appellant. Further, no valid reason has been assigned for the delay https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 of 14 years except simply stating that the delay has occurred only due to administrative reason. The delay is unexplained in this case. In fact, the learned Single Judge by considering all aspects, allowed the Writ petition by passing a detailed order. 9.The subject matter of the appeal is only for Rs.300/- i.e. cut in pension of Rs.150/- p.m. for 6 months. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the appellant has not fortified in preferring this appeal. 10. In the result, the order dated 14.06.2010 made in W.P. (MD).No.5995 of 2007 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Secretary , Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. 3.The Enquiry Officer, P.A.to District Collector, Karur (Noon Meal), Karur District. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,Advocate, Sr.No.9337 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.9348 W.A.(MD)No.227 of 2011 21.02.2011 nbj SMA/22.3.2011/6C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/