1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.7938 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 M.Thiagarajan ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Collectorate Complex, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ..Respondents Prayer: 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 relating to G.O.(2-D) No.88 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 and subsequent orders of retention in service ordered in G.O.(3-D) No.26 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to send pension proposals to the appropriate authority within a specified time frame that may be fixed by the Hon'ble High Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader ORDER The writ petition has been filed to quash the Government Order in G.O.(2-D) No.88 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 and subsequent orders of retention in service ordered in G.O.(3-D) No.26 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005, and consequently, the petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to send the pension proposals. 2. Considering the grievance expressed by the writ petitioner that he is under suspension for nearly 6 years and not allowed to retire on account of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, belatedly by the first respondent and also of the fact that orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010 and W.P.(MD) No.8074 of 2010 and 8075 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, that in similar circumstances, this Court has quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 delay, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader was put on notice and directed to get instruction from the respondents, as to whether any appeal had been preferred against the orders stated supra and also to examine similarity of the facts and the order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion. 3. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, he submitted that the respondents have sought for time. Though the respondents have not furnished any remarks as to the applicability of the judgments stated supra to the facts of this case, perusal of the orders made in the above writ petitions, namely W.P.(MD)No.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010 and W.P.(MD) No.8074 of 2010 and 8075 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, and the facts of the present case, I find that there is similarity in all respects, including the delay. I have also followed the above judgments and allowed a writ petition (MD) No.7652 of 2011 on 11.07.2011. 4. Pleadings and materials on record disclose that earlier, Government have initiated prosecution against various officials belonging to the Agricultural Department and First Information Reports were also registered. Subsequently, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.210, Agricultural Department AA-2 dated 09.10.2009, has withdrawn the prosecution. Earlier, when the prosecution was pending, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service on 30.06.2005, the date on which he attained the age of superannuation. In G.O.(2D) No.88, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD.II) Department, dated 30.06.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated. 5. Pleadings further disclose that while withdrawing the prosecution, the Government have ordered departmental action in G.O.No.210, Agriculture Department AA-2, dated 09.10.2009. Pursuant to the said directions, charges have been framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that when the petitioner was working as Managing Director, Melur Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Malur, Madurai District in the year 2000, he had issued identity cards in the name of farmers without field verification and ownership of lands which facilitated middle men and traders to sell copra in Melur Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Melur, Madurai District, in the year 2000. 6. Orders in G.O.(2-D) No.88 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 and G.O.(3-D) No.26 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 have been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. Attention of this Court was also invited to an order made in W.P.No.8924 of 2006 & 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010 in 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:- “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.” 8. As there is similarity of the facts, with the judgments stated supra and of the fact that disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Agriculture Department for the alleged delinquency has been quashed in many cases, and of the fact that 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 and W.P.Nos.8074 and 8075 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, this Court is inclined to grant the relief prayed for. 9. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned orders are set aside, consequently, the respondents are directed to send the pension proposals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Collectorate Complex, Villupuram, Villupuram District. sj akm/4.8.11 /3p-3c/ Writ Petition (MD)No.7938 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 22.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/