1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20/6/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)Nos.3190 and 3191 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1&1 of 2011 P.Ganapathy :Petitioner in both the petitions -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Handlooms Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department (E 2), Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles, Kuralagam 2nd Floor, Chennai 108. 3.The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Accountant General, Chennai 18. :Respondents in both the petitions Prayer in WP(MD)No.3190 of 2011:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari and to call for the records of the first respondent related to G.O.(2D) No.7 Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles, Khadi (E2) Department dated 30/4/2004 and quash the same. Prayer in WP(MD)No.3191 of 2011: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent related to G.O.(2D) No.8 Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles, Khadi (E2) Department dated 30/4/2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service on 30/4/2004 A.N and disburse all the retirement benefits due to the petitioner with 18% interest, within a time frame to be fixed by this court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy in both the petitions. For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, AGP for R.R.1 to 3 in both the petitions. Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R.4 (No appearance) in both the petitions COMMON ORDER Challenging the charge memoS issued by the first respondent dated 30/4/2004, the present writ petitions are laid. 2.The short matrix of the matters are set out hereunder:- a.The petitioner worked as Handloom Inspector in the Department of Handlooms and Textiles of the Government of Tamil Nadu and posted at Annai Bagavathi Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Jakkampatti, Madurai District as Special Officer from 14/12/1990 to 18/12/1990 and when the elected Board took charge of the Society, he was appointed as Secretary from 19/12/1990 to 28/7/1991 and when the elected Board was superseded, he was appointed as Special Officer from 29/7/1991. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 b.On a routine verification of the stock on 7/8/1991, it has been found deficit of javuli worth of Rs.2,83,220/- which was under the custody of one Karuppusamy. He admitted the deficit. The petitioner made a complaint about the deficit to his Superior viz., the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madurai. Thereafter, the said Karuppusamy remitted a sum of Rs.73,220/ immediately and undertook to pay the balance of Rs.2,10,000/- before 30/4/1992. c.Based on the petitioner's complaint, an enquiry was ordered under Section 81 of TNCS Act, 1983 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 14/8/1991, but no enquiry was conducted against the said person. The petitioner went on medical leave from 21/4/1992 to 20/5/1992. At that time, one Samuthiraraj was posted as Special Officer in-charge of the Society. He found stock deficit of Rs.5,76,221.93 which includes the deficit of stock already found out by the petitioner. d.An enquiry was conducted and a report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The said Karuppusamy accepted that he is responsible for the deficit of stock and agreed to pay the said amount. e.While so, the first respondent issued a charge memo dated 12/10/1992 to the petitioner framing five charges. The petitioner offered his explanation on 26/11/1992 denying the charges. The Joint Director (Handlooms), Chennai passed an order dated 30/5/1994 awarding a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, holding that all charges except charge No.3 were proved. f.The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent has allowed the appeal in part and reduced the punishment to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. He made a second appeal to the first respondent, who in turn sought the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has given its opinion that the petitioner is not responsible for the deficit of stock. They have also held that four charges are not proved whereas a part of one minor charge against the petitioner is said to be proved. However, the punishment has been reduced to stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. After the completion of the above punishment, he was promoted as Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles and continued as Assistant Director till the date of superannuation i.e., till 30/4/2004. g.While so, to the shock and surprise of the order passed, the petitioner was suspended on the date of superannuation by the first respondent vide G.O.(2D) No.7 Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles, Khadi (E2) Department dated 30/4/2004. He was also not permitted to retire from service. Challenging those proceedings, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 4.Though the petitioner was placed under suspension on 30/4/2004, till date, no charge memo has been issued to the petitioner. Even after seven years, neither the charge memo was issued to the petitioner nor an enquiry was conducted. Thus, the petitioner is kept under suspension for more than seven years. That apart, the disciplinary proceeding was already taken against the petitioner and he has been awarded with a minor punishment.It has to be further seen that one Karuppusamy has admitted that there was deficit of stock in the Society and further, admitted to pay the deficit amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.In the above backdrop of the matter, I am of the considered view that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner in the year 2004 and kept in force till 2011 has to be quashed. Taking such view, the impugned order dated 30/4/2004 passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed. 6.In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. It is needless to say that the respondents have to settle the entire retirement benefits to the petitioner. The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Handlooms Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department (E 2) Secretariat Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles Kuralagam 2nd Floor Chennai 108. 3. The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Accountant General, Chennai-18. +2CC to Mr.A.Thirumurthy, Advocate. SR.No.18985. +1CC to Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate. SR.No.19441. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.19258. Mvs. RP/05.07.2011/3P/9C. W.P.(MD)Nos.3190 and 3191 of 2011 20/6/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/