1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.11776 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Chinram ... Petitioner Vs. Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the charge memo made in Letter No.651/AA-2/2007-19 dated 20.12.2010 issued by the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s. Pala Ramasamy For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi Govt. Advocate O R D E R The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo dated 20.12.2010 issued in Letter No.651/AA-2/2007-19, on the ground that the impugned charge memo has been issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, with the delay of more than 9 years for an alleged occurrence took place between December 2000 and June 2001 and it is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005(4) CTC 403. 2. When the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Agricultural Officer, the respondent issued the impugned charge memorandum dated 20.12.2010 by invoking the Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, on the allegation that while he was serving as an Assistant Agricultural Officer at Mallingapuram, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District from December 2000 till June 2001, had wrongly issued identity cards without field inspection and without verifying the ownership of land. Further, he was also alleged to have issued the identity cards without even attesting the photos affixed in the I.D. cards which finally facilitated the traders to sell copra in the Veerapandi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Veerapandi and thereby violated the Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. He pleaded, the above said allegations were not correct for the reason that the work relating to assessing of coconut trees in each survey numbers were done by the petitioner and identity cards were also issued by him on the basis of proper survey number and after ascertaining the ownership of the land. Secondly, the impugned charge memo has been issued with inordinate delay of 10 years without any reason whatsoever for the inordinate delay. This has caused great hardships and prejudice not only to the petitioner but also to the Department to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 recall the particulars which are required to be placed by both sides before the disciplinary authority to take a further decision thereon. It was further contended that in a similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. (MD).No.8074 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, while considering the similar issue has come to the conclusion that as there is an inordinate delay in initiating the charge memo, the same is liable to be quashed. One more order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.9911 to 9913 of 2001 dated 05.09.2011 also has been produced to say that there is no quarrel over the same issue. In yet another similar and identical issue, when a charge memo was issued in the same Department under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, with inordinate delay of 9 years, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared in the said matter, after taking notice for the respondent fairly submitted that disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Revenue Department for the alleged delinquency has been already quashed by this Court in many cases and no appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010. On that basis the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the same order. 3. Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent also has no quarrel to the said proposition as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court a list of similar cases filed by a similarly situated persons challenging the charge memo issued with inordinate delay and this Court in all the above cases by applying the ratio of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 has held that no charge memo can be issued with an inordinate delay of 9 years. On that basis the charge memo issued with an inordinate delay is quashed. Further in all the copra cases the State Government has taken a stand that no evidence is available to prosecute further the delinquents before the criminal Court, on this basis all the criminal cases were withdrawn. In such view of the matter, this Court is also of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the order mentioned as above as the facts of the present case are also similar thereto. 5. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.37365 W.P.(MD)No.11776 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 31.10.2011 akv/RJ/25.11.11/(2p/3c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/