1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.13423 of 2011 T.Vasantha : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the Government letter No.39032/AA-2/2009-7, dated 21.12.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner, who was appointed as Village Administrative Officer, on 01.09.1982, at Therkku Sankarankovil Village, Tirunelveli District, continued the same post and lastly serving as Village Administrative Officer, Andukodu, Vilavankodu Taluk, Kanyakumari District till her date of superannuation on 31.08.2010. While so, after four months from the date of retirement, she was issued with the Charge Memo by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government vide his letter dated 21.12.2010 with two charges for the alleged occurrence said to have taken place during the period between 16.06.1999 and 26.12.2000 when she was working at Pallugal Village in Kanyakumari District. 2. The charges show that she did not keep the office seal of Pallugal Village under safe custody which enabled the false creation of farmers identity cards bearing Nos.1675, 1713, 1714, 1774, 2704 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and 2709, with incorrect and false details relating to the ownership of the land, survey number and other particulars of land and enabled the affixing of the office seal of the Pallugal Village in the farmers identity cards which caused a loss of Rs.3,53,770.50 to the Government. Subsequently, criminal cases were also initiated against the petitioner and others. After some time, the State Government has taken a policy decision to withdraw all the criminal cases throughout the State of Tamil Nadu against the subordinates in the Agricultural Department, Cooperative Department and Revenue Department on the ground that there was a delay of more than ten years in issuance of charge memo, therefore, it would be impossible to collect evidence to substantiate their case before the criminal court. 3. When the Government issued G.O.No.210, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, dated 9.10.2009, taking a policy decision that the cases filed before the criminal court are not worthy to be proceeded, the same analogy will be applied to the cases pending before the Departments. On that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the Government has already taken a policy decision to withdraw all the criminal cases on the ground of huge delay in issuing the charge memo and that it would be highly impossible to collect any acceptable evidence to establish the criminal charges against the delinquent officer, the same reasoning would be equally applicable to the departmental proceedings as well. Accepting this reasoning, this Court in similar matters has quashed similar charge memo, which were issued belatedly with inordinate delay of more than 10 years. On that basis, he prayed to quash the impugned charge memo dated 21.12.2010 which was issued with a delay of 10 years. 4. In support of his submission, he relied upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.586 to 587 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 (P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board) followed by another order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009 (T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department,Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan,IPS, Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Chennai 28 and other) reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) and yet another order in the case of B.K.Gunasekaran Vs.State of T.N. reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 161 in W.P. No. 9856 of 2010. 5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the Government has filed a Writ Appeal against one of the orders, however the same was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that even that Writ Appeal also was dismissed. 6. However, the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate may not stand to any reason in view of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos. 586 and 587 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 and another order passed in W.A. No. 610 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009 quashing similar charge memo on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. When this Court has consistently passed uniform orders in copra cases quashing the charge memo on the ground that the Government has taken a stand to withdraw all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 criminal cases for the reason that it would be impossible for them to establish the charges against the delinquent Government employees, the said reason would equally apply to the departmental proceedings as well. 7. In view of the above reasons, the present impugned charge memo which has been issued with a huge inordinate delay of 10 years is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 42538 srm ssk/09.01.2012 /4c -3p/- Order made in W.P.(MD).No. 13423 of 2011 Dated:- 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/