IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.08.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.7104 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 C.Ramanan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 2. The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order in R.C.2771/08/A1 dated 29.11.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to dispose of entire retirement benefits to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Office at Kodiyakarai Village, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District, between the period 2002 and 2006. Later, he was transferred to Chettipulam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Village, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. While so, a charge sheet dated 06.08.2008 was issued by the 3rd respondent under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 2. The crux of the charge was that the petitioner received a bribe of Rs.1,500/- from three fishermen to identify their names for some benefits under Tsunami schemes. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The third respondent appointed Mr.Jeevanantham, Special Tahsildar, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. Thiru.Jeevanantham submitted his report after the enquiry, holding that the charges were not established. The 3rd respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order dated 29.06.2009, dropping the charges. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent appointed one Mr.Abdul Muthaleef, Special Tahsildar, as Enquiry Officer on the same charges referred to above. 3. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. But the third respondent passed an order dated 29.11.2010, not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and retaining him in service until enquiry into the charges referred to above is concluded and final orders passed thereon by the competent authority. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2010, passed by the third respondent, not permitting him to retire on the ground that there cannot be the second enquiry. Once the third respondent, namely, disciplinary authority dropped the charges, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer holding that the charges were not established, there cannot be a second enquiry. The petitioner has also sought a direction to disburse the entire retirement benefits. 4. Heard the submissions made on either side. The learned Government Advocate has made submissions based on the instructions. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal with consent of both the parties. 5. The 3rd respondent issued the charge memo dated 06.08.2008 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, he appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges made in the charge memo dated 06.08.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were not proved. The 3rd respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order dated 29.06.2009, wherein he accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and dropped the charges. However, the 3rd respondent appointed another Enquiry Officer to enquire into the same charges that were made in charge sheet dated 06.08.2008 by proceedings in Na.Ka.2771/08/A1 dated: --/04/2010. The enquiry is said to have been pending. Citing the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was not permitted to retire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 30.11.2010, when he reached the age of superannuation, by way of the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent. He was placed under suspension and he was retained in the service under Rule 56(i)(c) of the Fundamental Rules for the purpose of completing the enquiry referred to in to the charge memo dated 06.08.2008. 6. In my view, once the 3rd respondent dropped the charges accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he has no power and jurisdiction to appoint another Enquiry Officer and to continue the disciplinary proceedings. 7. The Honourable Apex Court, in 2007(11) SCC 517 (Kanailal Bera vs. Union of India and others) has also held that no employee could be made to face the enquiry for the second time, if the Disciplinary Authority dropped the charges, based on the report of the first Enquiry Officer. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 placing the petitioner under suspension and also retaining him in service until conclusion of enquiry, is quashed. Since the impugned order is quashed, the respondents are directed to disburse the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ogy To 1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. +1cc to T.P.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr 46836 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 46958 RS(CO) km/5.8. W.P.No.7104 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/