1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No. 13956 of 2011 A.Venkattaraman ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the Government letter No.87/AA1/2008-11 dated 17.07.2008 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner alone vide SL.No.15 and consequently direct the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Assistant Director of Agricultural of the year 2007-2008 on par with his junior with all service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Officer on 08.04.1985 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on under the control of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil seeds), Karu. He is now working under the control of Seed Testing Officer, Seed Testing Laboratory, Kajamalai, Tricy. While so, he was issued with the Charge Memo by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government in his letter dated 01.10.2010 with two charges for the alleged occurrence said to have taken place during the period period from 07.06.2000 to 09.07.2002 when he was working at Krishnarayapuram, Karur District . 2. The charges show that the petitioner while functioning as Agricultural Development Officer, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District during the period from 07.06.2000 to 09.07.2002 had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 counter-signed the 27 Coconut growing farmers Identity Cards, prepared by the Village Administrative Officer, Pillapalayam, without making field inspection, without due verification regarding the name and address of the farmers, survey numbers, extent of lands, number of coconut trees, probable annual yield etc. Subsequently, criminal cases were also initiated against the petitioner and others. After some time, the State Government has taken a policy decision to withdraw all the criminal cases throughout the State of Tamil Nadu against the subordinates in the Agricultural Department, Cooperative Department and Revenue Department on the ground that there was a delay of more than ten years in issuance of charge memo, therefore, it would be impossible to collect evidence to substantiate their case before the criminal court. 3. When the Government issued G.O.No.210, Agriculture (AA- 2) Department, dated 9.10.2009, taking a policy decision that the cases filed before the criminal court are not worthy to be proceeded, the same analogy will be applied to the cases pending before the Departments. On that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the Government has already taken a policy decision to withdraw all the criminal cases on the ground of huge delay in issuing the charge memo and that it would be highly impossible to collect any acceptable evidence to establish the criminal charges against the delinquent officer, the same reasoning would be equally applicable to the departmental proceedings as well. Accepting this reasoning, this Court in similar matters has quashed similar charge memo, which were issued belatedly with inordinate delay of more than 10 years. On the basis of Charge Memo issued by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government in his letter dated 01.10.2010, the first respondent has issued a letter dated 17.07.2008 rejecting the petitioner to include in the list of Assistant Director of Agricultural of the year 2007-2008. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned letter dated 17.07.2008. 4. In support of his submission, he relied upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.586 to 587 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 (P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board) followed by another order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009 (T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department,Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan,IPS, Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Chennai 28 and other) reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) and yet another order in the case of B.K.Gunasekaran Vs.State of T.N. reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 161 in W.P. No. 9856 of 2010. 5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the Government has filed a Writ Appeal against one of the orders, however the same was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that even that Writ Appeal also was dismissed. 6. However, the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate may not stand to any reason in view of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 and another order passed in W.A. No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009 quashing similar charge memo on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. When this Court has consistently passed uniform orders in copra cases quashing the charge memo on the ground that the Government has taken a stand to withdraw all the criminal cases for the reason that it would be impossible for them to establish the charges against the delinquent Government employees, the said reason would equally apply to the departmental proceedings as well. 7. In view of the above reasons, the charge memo which has been passed with a huge inordinate delay of 10 years and the consequent impugned letter dated 17.07.2008 issued by the first respondent in respect of the petitioner alone are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are quashed and the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Assistant Director of Agricultural of the year 2007-2008 on par with his junior with all service and monetary benefits preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To, 1.The Principal Secretary and Agricultural Production Commissioner , Agricultural (AA-2) Department,Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. +One cC to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.43133 srm rl/4 c- 9.1.2012 W.P.(MD)No. 13956 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/