1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10858 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Arulanantham : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government,Agriculture (AA2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to suspension order passed in R.C.No.3748/2004/A1, dated 30.08.2006 as well as consequential proceedings in R.C.No.3748/2004/A1, dated 31.08.2006 passed by the second respondent in addition to charge memo made in letter (1) No.29143/AA2/2005-11, dated 27.07.2010, (2) No.29144/AA2/2005-23, dated 27.07.2010, (3) No.31226/AA2/2005-25, dated 27.07.2010, (4) No.39045/AA2/2005-24, dated 30.09.2010 (5) dated 27.07.2010 No.47728/AA2/2002-21 (6) dated 27.07.2010 No.3963/AA2/2006-20 (7) dated 15.02.2011 No.39046/AA2/2005-15 (8) dated 28.09.2010 No.2930/AA2/2005-14, by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and unenforceable and consequently, direct the respondents to settle all retiral benefits with interest lawfully due to the writ petitioner, within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar,Government Advocate ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District, the second respondent herein, in R.C.No.3748/2004/A1, dated 30.08.2006 and the consequential order passed in R.C.No.3748/2004/A1, dated 31.08.2006 as well as the charge memos issued by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, the first respondent herein in letter (1) No.29143/AA2/2005-11, dated 27.07.2010, (2) No.29144/AA2/2005-23, dated 27.07.2010, (3) No.31226/AA2/2005-25, dated 27.07.2010, (4) No.39045/AA2/2005-24, dated 30.09.2010 (5) No.47728/AA2/2002-21, dated 27.07.2010 (6) No.3963/AA2/2006-20, dated 27.07.2010 (7) No.39046/AA2/2005- 15, dated 15.02.2011 (8) No.2930/AA2/2005-14, dated 28.09.2010, by which, disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 2. According to the petitioner, he joined in service as a Village Administrative Officer on 10.03.1984 and he worked in various villages in Thanjavur District to the highest satisfaction of his superiors. While so, the second respondent, vide proceedings in R.C.No.3748/2004/A1, dated 30.08.2006, suspended him from service on the ground that he issued false certificate for procurement of copra and consequently, without permitting him to retire, invoking Fundamental Rules 56(1)(C), the second respondent, vide proceedings in R.C.No.3748/2004/A1, dated 31.08.2006, extended his service. Subsequently, the first respondent, vide letter (1) No.29143/AA2/2005-11, dated 27.07.2010, (2) No.29144/AA2/2005-23, dated 27.07.2010, (3) No.31226/AA2/2005-25, dated 27.07.2010, (4) No.39045/AA2/2005-24, dated 30.09.2010 (5) No.47728/AA2/2002-21, dated 27.07.2010 (6) No.3963/AA2/2006-20, dated 27.07.2010 (7) No.39046/AA2/2005-15, dated 15.02.2011 (8) No.2930/AA2/2005- 14, dated 28.09.2010, issued charge memos, by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the ground that when the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at Kaivanavayal Village between 2000 and 2001, he has issued identity card with false particulars in the name of non existing persons which facilitated the trader and middle men to sell copra for the above period. Challenging those orders, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that earlier, criminal cases were registered against the subordinates in the Agriculture Department and Revenue Department and that the same were withdrawn as per G.O. 210, Agriculture Department AA-2, dated 09.10.2009. Pursuant to which, the impugned disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The impugned charge memos have been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. 4. 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. 5. 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:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "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." 6. 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. 7. Considering the submissions of both sides and after going through the materials on record and on perusal of the order made in the aforesaid 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. 8. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned orders are set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to settle all the retiral benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR SML To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 33147: DM::2011:OCTOBER:::03:: Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10858 of 2011 Dated:- 23.09.2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/