IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.15065 of 2010 AND M.P.No. 2 of 2010 Dr.K.Thangaraju ... Petitioner Vs The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (AA1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo in letter No.20681/AH1/2007-5 dated 13.1.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataraman, SC for M.Muthappan For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, AGP ORDER The petitioner herein is a veterinary Doctor. For the alleged mis-conduct said to have been committed by the petitioner pertained to the 1991-92, a charge memo was issued by the respondent on 13.01.2010. The charge against the petitioner on the statement of allegation are extracted hereunder: "Charge: Dr.K.Thangaraju, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, while working as Extention Officer (Animal Husbandry) Veppur Panchayat Union, Trichy District during the year 91-92, issued a false Health Certificate to the bullocks in the fictitious names of the following two loanees and thus he helped for the cheating of Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ loans through bank to the down trodden and thus he violated the rules and regulation of the Government service and created a bad name to the department also. 1)Thiru.A.Muthurengan, S/o.Ambikapathi, Velvimangalam. 2)Thiru.M.Senguttuvan, S/o.Mayavel, Velvimangalam. ANNEXURE-II Statement of allegations namely imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of charge framed against the said Dr.K.Thangaraju, veterinary Assistant Surgeon. -------------------------------------------------- Charge:- The Village Administrative Officer's certificates regarding possession of land are bogus as no such persons reside in the village, namely Keelaperambalur Village and no land is available in such names in the Village. The Village Administrative Officer had issued a false certificate deliberately for the commission of fraud. In the instances in which the loan was sanctioned for the purported purpose of purchasing bullocks and carts a Health Certificate issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is available in the file. However, the loanees are fictitious persons and the assets were not created. Hence obviously the health certificates issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon after having examined the bullocks are false and fabricated. The loan application and the memorandum of agreement for Agricultural loan, Demand Promissory Note, Memo of agreement, etc., which are to be executed by the concerned loanees were actually forged. The Senior Scientific Office of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Unit, Central Bureau of investigation, Madras has informally certified that the signatures on the loan documents were forged." 2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the charge memo has been issued after nearly 20 years of the alleged occurrence. Infact for a similar alleged occurrence, a charge memo was issued earlier and further action was dropped in pursuant to the Enquiry Officer's report. The charge memo has been issued when the petitioner is likely to be considered for promotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is the case of the respondent that the loanees are fictitious persons. The said fact by itself cannot be a ground to take action against the petitioner as a duty is only to issue the health certificate by examining the animals. In other words it is submitted that even assuming the loans have been given to fictitious persons, the said fact would not invalidate the health certificate issued by the petitioner and in any case, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for granting of the loan as his duty is to issue health certificate after verifying the health of the animals concerned. In support of the contention regarding the un-explained delay in passing the charge memo for the alleged occurrence that occurred 20 years back reliance has been made on a judgment reported in (2011) 7 MLJ 927 in the case of Ilangovan and others versus District Collector, Nilgiris District, Ooty and others. 4.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 5.It is seen that initiation of departmental proceedings and action taken under the Criminal Procedure Code are distinct and different. Admittedly, no action has been taken against the petitioner under the Criminal Procedure Code, even though a Criminal case has been filed against the Bank officials as well as the Village Administrative Officers. Probably, the respondent has issued the charge memo in view of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the Bank Officials and Village Administrative Officers. 6.There is absolutely no explanation as to why proceedings have not been issued against the petitioner when the respondent is the competent Authority to take action. Such an action cannot be justified after a period of 20 yeas merely because an investigation agency has took action not with-standing the fact the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the criminal case. Considering the in-ordinate delay which has not been properly explained and taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held by this Court in the case of Ilangovan and others Vs. District Collector, Nigiris District, Ooty and others reported in (2011) 7 MLJ 927 in the following manner in paragraph 15: "15.In P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, AIR 2006 SC 207: (2005) 6 SCC 636 : LNIND 2005 SC 598 : 2005 (4) CTC 403 : 2005-III- LLJ-527, it was held by the Supreme Court that after a long and unexplained delay of ten years in initiating disciplinary proceedings, such proceedings cannot be allowed to continue, since the same is prejudicial to the government servant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ resulting in unbearable mental agony. The Supreme Court has held as follows at p.330 of LLJ: "15.Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer." By the said judgment, it is clear that in the absence of any impediment on the part of the department in proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings at the earliest point of time, if the department sleeps over the issue, it would be detrimental to the interest of the delinquent and certainly such disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. If by virtue of unexplained delay there has been some detriment caused to the delinquent, the same is fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. For the reasons that enquiry has not been conducted in the manner known to law and the delay in disciplinary proceeding has not been properly explained and taking note of the fact that even as per the direction of the second respondent, 50% of the amount has already been deposited by the petitioners, I am of the view that remitting of the matter for the purpose of following the procedure contemplated under law will not subserve any purpose and therefore, the writ petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stand allowed and the impugned orders stand set aside. No costs." 7.Apart from the same, this Court has also perused the charges framed. It is no doubt true that the law is well settled that the merits involved in a charge memo is not amendable to the jurisdiction of this Court in the normal circumstances. However, in certain extra-ordinary situations, this Court can also go into the charge memo when the very charge itself would show that there is no mis- conduct on the part of the delinquent officer concerned. The charges as extracted above would show that loans have been issued in the names of the fictitious persons. The assets have not been created. It is an admitted fact that the duty of the petitioner is to examine the animals and issue health certificate. Therefore, merely because the loans have been given to the fictitious persons, the certificate issued by the petitioner cannot be invalidated. There is no charge to the effect against the petitioner to the fact that he has not examined the animals. The petitioner is not duty bound to verify the names of the loanees. It is the duty of the Bank Officials and the Village Administrative Officers. Therefore, even on merits, this Court is of the view that the very charge levelled against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8.Therefore, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned charge memo would require interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pri To The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (AA1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 1 CC to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate, SR.69153 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.69218 W.P.No.15065 of 2010 and M.P.No. 2 of 2010 KSJ(CO) SRA(25/11/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/