IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.9872 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 R.Raman ... Petitioner Versus 1.Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agricultural Department Fort St. George Chennai – 5 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk Chennai – 5 ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner-R.Raman has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned charge memo issued by the first respondent in Letter No.5509/AA-2(2)/96-39, dated 03.03.2008 and to quash the same for the only sole reason that the first respondent issued the charge memo with inordinate delay of 23 years, for the alleged allegation said to have taken place in the year 1986. The second allegation mentioned in the charge memo shows that the petitioner had assisted the accused one K.Ramaiah, Assistant Director of Agriculture. During the year 1986, when the similarly placed co- accused against whom a similar charge memo was issued, approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by filing the Writ Petition in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.(MD) No.2322 of 2007, the Court, by taking note of the fact that the respondents have failed to give sufficient reason for the inordinate delay in issuing charge memo, held that the respondents are not entitled to continue the disciplinary proceedings. On that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to set aside the present impugned charge memo. 2. He would further submit that in any event, since the charge memo has been issued with inordinate delay of 23 years, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 CTC 403, holding that where the disciplinary proceedings initiated after a lapse of ten years should not continued, he prayed for allowing the present Writ Petition. 3. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.2322 of 2007, in and by which, the learned single Judge has quashed the impugned proceedings by holding that the respondents are not entitled to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the unexplained inordinate delay of more than 15 years. Since the present respondents-Department was also party to the said Writ Petition No.2322 of 2007. 4. This Court is also bound by the order passed by the learned single Judge in the above mentioned Writ Petition. Besides the charge memo issued by the first respondent dated 03.03.2008 for the allegation that the petitioner has assisted one K.Ramaiah and thereby he has given room for initiation of departmental proceeding for the alleged allegation took place in the year 1986, is also liable to be set aside, for the reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, has held that:- "The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. We therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No cost." Applying the above said ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case of the petitioner on hand, I am of the view, the inordinate delay of 23 years in issuing the impugned charge memo is liable to be interfered with by this Court. In as much as the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the enquiry, on the ground that 9 years of delay has vitiated the enquiry and also further held that the High Court ought to have interfered with in that matter, in the case on hand, the unexplained delay of 23 years in issuance of the impugned charge memo would definitely vitiate the enquiry resulting in great prejudice to the petitioner herein. Having regard to the fact that the protracted disciplinary proceedings and the long delay in issuing charge memo are nothing but harassment, the very allegation that the petitioner has assisted one K.Ramaiah, formerly Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sivaganga District, also will not survive, for the simple reason that the criminal proceedings filed against the said K.Ramaiah also could not be proceeded. 5. In view of the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merits in the impugned proceedings issued against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned charge memo is set aside and the Writ Petition is therefore allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar smn To 1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agricultural Department Fort St. George Chennai – 5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk Chennai – 5 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.36558 1 CC to Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate, S.R.No.36678 W.P.No.9872 of 2010 SAI(CO) SRA(14/7/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/