1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/8/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.9242 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 M.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs 1.Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection (CL-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai 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 relating to the suspension order made in R.C.No.4904/2006 A-1, dated 28.03.2008 as well as the consequential order made in R.C.No.4904/2006 A-1, dated 31.03.2008, passed by the second respondent and the charge memo made in Letter No.20904/CL-1/2006-18, dated 01.11.2010 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle all the retirements benefits, monetary as well as service benefits with appropriate interest till the payment within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.Pala Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Government Pleader ORDER The writ petition has been filed to quash the orders passed by the second respondent in Rc.No.4904/2006 A-1, dated 28.03.2008 and in R.C.No.4904/2006 A-1, dated 31.03.2008, as well as the consequential order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.20904/CL-1/2006-18, dated 01.11.2010, consequently, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, monetary as well as service benefits with appropriate interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that when he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Kammangadu Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, during 19.02.1997 to 19.07.2002, he was alleged to have issued false certificates in the names of fictitious persons which facilitated middlemen and traders to sell copra in Agricultural Producers' Co-operative Marketing Society, (APCMS), Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District and thereby violated Rule 20 (1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. Furthermore, for the alleged occurrence said to have taken place between 19.02.1997 to 19.07.2002, the first respondent has issued the charge memo, after ten years, without any reason whatsoever. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. 210, Agriculture Department AA-2, 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. 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 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." 6. There is no quarrel over the similarity of the facts, with the one stated supra. Even Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special 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 abovesaid 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, consequently, the respondents are directed to send the pension proposals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection (CL-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.28008 gcg W.P.(MD)No.9242 of 2011 17/08/2011 TR : 07.09.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/