1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.10389 of 2011 A.Basheer Ahamed ..Petitioner Vs The District Collector Dindigul District, Dindigul. ..Respondent Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the disciplinary action initiated in his memo No.36394/2009/A1 dated 03.10.2009 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court. For petitioner ...Mr.S.Visvalingam For respondent ...Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl. Government Pleader O R D E R Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, who has completed 30 years of service, has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the District Collector, Dindigul District, the respondent herein, to dispose of the disciplinary action initiated by him, in memo No.36394/2009/A1 dated 03.10.2009, under which, the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. 3.Pleadings disclose that on 03.10.2009, the District Collector, Dindigul District, vide proceedings No.36394/2009/A1, issued a charge memo against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rues. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 19.10.2010. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has sent his enquiry report on 20.12.2010. 4.According to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings initiated is for the occurrence of the year 2006 and that there is an inordinate delay. Nevertheless, he subjected himself to the enquiry proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though, the enquiry report has been submitted, as early as on 20.12.2010, the respondent has not passed any order, sofar. Ventilating his grievance, the petitioner has also made a representation dated 10.01.2011 explaining the action taken by him to recover the amount from the person who had received it by mistake. Despite the said representation, the respondent has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 taken any efforts to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings. His other grievance is that his name has not been included in the approved list of Deputy Collector of the year 2009 and 2010. Unable to bear the agony, he has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief, stated supra. 5.Material on record shows that though the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo by the District Collector, Dindigul District and consequently disciplinary proceedings were also initiated in the year 2009, for which an enquiry report has also been submitted on 20.12.2010, as rightly contended, pendency of disciplinary proceedings for nearly 5 years, would certainly cause agony and hardship to the petitioner. Pleading discloses that the petitioner's name has not been included in the approved list of Deputy Collectors, due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a failure on the part of the respondent in passing orders on the disciplinary proceedings. No sooner, the disciplinary proceedings are completed and if any further explanation is required, the respondent ought to have obtained the same and passed orders, as expeditiously as possible. Keeping the petitioner in service, without considering his case for further promotion and protracting the disciplinary proceedings would cause hardship and agony to the petitioner, who has been languishing for nearly 5 years. 6.In view of the above, the respondent is directed to pass orders on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Collector, in his memo No.36394/2009/A1 dated 03.10.2009, within a period of four weeks from today, if there is no other impediment. It is made clear that the respondent shall pass orders within the stipulated time to avoid further litigation. If for any bonafide reason, orders could not be passed within the stipulated time, that would not clothe any right on the petitioner, to seek for deemed completion of the enquiry. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AS ) /TRUE COPY/ vs SUB ASST REGISTRAR To The District Collector Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR; 31452: AND 31381 DM:2011:SEPTEMBER:22:: Writ Petition No.10389 of 2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/