1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/08/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.9253 of 2011 A.Chakravarthy ... Petitioner Vs 1.Principal Secretary to Government Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection, (CL1) Department Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to suspension order made in Rc.No.4904/2006A-1 dated 30.06.2010 as well as the consequential order made in Rc.No.4904/2006A-1 dated 30.06.2010 passed by the second respondent and the charge memo made in letter No.20904/CI-1/2006-31 dated 01.11.2010 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, monetary as well as service with appropriate interest till the payment. For petitioner ...Mr.Pala.Ramasamy For respondent ...Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Pleader O R D E R The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein, in Rc.No.4904/2006a-1 dated 30.06.2010 as well as the charge memo in Letter No.20904/CI-1/2006-31 dated 01.11.2010 passed by the first respondent, by which, disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 2. According to the petitioner, he was recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1981 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appointed as Village Administrative Officer, and joined duty on 16.08.1982 and he is presently serving as Village Administrative Officer, Pudukottai. While so, the second respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.4904/06A-1 dated 30.06.2010, suspended the petitioner by invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. Subsequently, the second respondent by referring to the suspension order and by invoking Fundamental Rules 56(1) (c) extended his service without permitting him to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2010. Thereafter, the first respondent, vide Government Letter No.20904/CI-1/2006-31 dated 01.11.2010, issued a charge memo by invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the ground that when the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at Narpavalakudy Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District, from 11.06.1997 to 20.07.2002, he has issued false particulars in the identity cards in the names of fictitious persons, which facilitated middle men and traders to sell copra in the Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Aranthangi between June and November 2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the reliefs stated supra. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that earlier, criminal cases were registered against the subordinates in the Agriculture Department and Revenue Department and that the same were withdrawn as per G.O.No.210, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, dated 09.10.2009. Pursuant to which, the impugned disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The impugned charge memo has been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in 2005(4) CTC 403, in W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007; in W.A.No. 610 of 2008, dated 06.03.2009; in T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department, Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan, IPS Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Ch-28 and other, reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil); and in B.K.Gunasekaran V. State of T.N. reported in 2010(7) MLJ 161. 5. Attention of this Court has also been invited to an order made in W.P.No. 8924 of 2006 & 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010 [L.Frederick Jayaseelan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others], wherein this Court, after considering the facts and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (stated supra) and other cases, has quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners therein. At paragraph No.8 of the order, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "In view of the judicial dictum laid down by the Apex Court, applying the same to the facts of the present case, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the order of suspension as well as the impugned charge memo are illegal. Since the respondent has not chosen to explain the reason for delay, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memo is liable to be set aside." 6. There is no quarrel over the similarity of the facts, with the one stated supra. Even Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, fairly submitted that disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Agricultural Department for the alleged delinquency, has been quashed in many cases. No appeal seemed to have been filed against the order made in W.P.Nos.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010. 7. Considering the submissions of both sides and after going through the materials on record and on perusal of the order made in the aforesaid Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the orders stated supra. The facts are similar and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay. 8. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned orders are set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to send the pension proposals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.Principal Secretary to Government Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection, (CL1) Department Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District +One cC to The Spl .Govt Pleader, SR.No.28511 RR rl/4c – 8.9.2011 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.9253 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/