IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20-04-2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN W.P.No.34575 of 2006 N. Arumugam ..Petitioner Versus The Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ..Respondent O.A.No.9208 of 1998 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court, which was filed praying to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the order passed in GO (3D) No.5, Agri.(AA. II) Department dated 21.01.1993 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Muthappan For Respondent : Mrs. Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has filed the above Original Application before the Tribunal, challenging the order of punishment dated 21.01.1993 passed by the respondent stopping increment of the petitioner for a period of three years with cumulative effect and also ordered to recover a sum of Rs.2,220/- in ten instalments at the rate of Rs.220/- per month from his salary. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 34575 of 2006. 2. The petitioner entered the service as Extension Officer in the agricultural department on 10.07.1967. When the petitioner was working as Deputy Agricultural Officer (Oil Seeds) at Gobichettipalayam during the year 1977, a vigilance enquiry was initiated against him on the ground that he had procured ground nut seeds from a farmer at exorbitant rate of Rs.13,200/- thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,200/-. A charge memo dated 15.09.1984 was served to the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the respondent on 15.04.1988 holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, without furnishing the copy of the report of the enquiry officer has straightaway passed an order dated 21.01.1993 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and also to recover the alleged loss of Rs.2,200/- from the petitioner's salary in ten monthly instalments. The petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground the alleged occurrence stated to have taken place in the year 1977 to 1978 for which a charge memo was issued in the year 1984; that the first hearing of the enquiry was conducted on 27.11.1987 and on 15.04.1988, the enquiry officer submitted his report. Thereafter, after five years, the respondent has passed the impugned order of punishment on 21.01.1993. Challenging the order dated 21.01.1993, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 07.05.1993, but no order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner sent a reminder on 24.05.1995. Even thereafter, the appellate authority did not take up the appeal, therefore, the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 1362 of 1998 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by an order dated 12.02.1998 directed the appellate authority to pass orders within twelve weeks. Even after such direction issued by the Tribunal, the appellate authority did not pass any orders. Therefore, according to the petitioner, by reason of inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in passing order of punishment as well as in disposing of the appeal within a reasonable time, he was subjected to untold trauma, hardship and mental agony. Therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay, the petitioner seeks to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings. 3. The respondent has not filed any counter. The learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner to quash the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in the enquiry and only thereafter, the punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority by adhering to the Rules. Taking into consideration that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a minor punishment, she prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. The writ petition has to be allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. To fortify my conclusion, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 21.01.1993 passed by the disciplinary authority which is as follows:- "...Government have held that the charge as proved and for the proved charges Government have decided to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect on the accused officer and also to recover the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ loss of Rs.2,200/- caused to the Government from him. They, accordingly, direct that the next increment of Thiru. N. Arumugam, formerly Deputy Agricultural Officer (Oil Seeds), Gobichettipalayam be stopped for three years with cumulative effect for the charge held proved against him. The period of stoppage of increment reckoned will be inclusive of the period spent on leave before the period is completed. The Government also direct that the los of Rs.2,200/- (Rupees Two Thousand and two hundred only) caused to the Government be recovered from the pay of the individual at the rate of Rs.220/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty only) per month for a period of ten months. 6. A copy of the enquiry officer's report i.e., D.E. No.133/04 of the Commissioner for disciplinary proceedings, Coimbatore is communicated to the accused officer." 5. Therefore, it is clear that the disciplinary authority, after imposing the punishment only, had served the report of the enquiry officer to the petitioner, which is per se illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority ought to have furnished the copy of the report of the enquiry officer before imposing the punishment and sought the explanation of the petitioner, but the same was not done in this case. Therefore, when this mandatory requirement has not been complied with by the disciplinary authority, by which the petitioner would have been given an opportunity to disprove the findings of the enquiry officer by adverting to the statement of the witnesses, the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. To add fuel to the fire, the petitioner was made to wait for a long time from 1977 to 1998 to see the end of the tunnel. It is relevant to point out that the occurrence stated to have taken place in the year 1977 to 1978 for which a charge memo was issued in the year 1984. The first hearing of the enquiry was conducted on 27.11.1987. On 15.04.1988, the enquiry officer submitted his report. Thereafter, after five years, the respondent passed the impugned order of punishment on 21.01.1993. Challenging the order dated 21.01.1993, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 07.05.1993, but no order was passed. Therefore, he sent a reminder on 24.05.1995. Even thereafter, the appellate authority did not take up the appeal, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A. No. 1362 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 12.02.1998 directed the appellate authority to pass orders in the appeal within twelve weeks. But, even after a direction was issued by the Tribunal, the appellate authority did not pass any orders. Therefore, by reason of inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in passing order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment and in disposing the appeal within a reasonable time, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636 wherein in Para No.11, it was held thus:- "11. 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 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." 6. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /True copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. + 1 c.c. to M/s. T.Ayngaraprabhu, Advocate. S.R.No.27350. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.25983. WP.No.34575 of 2006 AKR (CO) GSK 10.06.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/