1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.12481 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Suthanthiram : Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records on the file of the second respondent relating to the order issued in Roc.A1/28961/2005, dated 28.08.2005 and the consequential order issued by the second respondent in Roc.A1/28961/2005, dated 29.08.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement dated 31.08.2005 together with interest at the rate to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court within the time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : M/s.G.Sankaran For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader ORDER ****** This Writ Petition has been filed by R.Suthanthiram seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent District Collector, Virudhunagar District, relating to the order issued in Roc.A1/28961/2005, dated 28.08.2005 and the consequential order issued by the second respondent in Roc.A1/28961/2005, dated 29.08.2005 and quash the same with further consequential direction to the respondents to settle the retirement benefits from the date of his retirement dated 31.08.2005 along with interest at the rate to be fixed by this Court within the stipulated time. 2. Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the service as Lower Division Clerk on 31.09.1966 in the Revenue Department. On transfer to various other places, he has also got promotion to the post of Tahsildhar in the year 1997 and thereafter, he has been continuously working till the date of superannuation viz., 31.08.2005. At the verge of his retirement, he was issued with four sets of charge memos dated 25.03.2005, 25.08.2005, 27.08.2005 and 27.08.2005. He would further submit that the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the case of the petitioner in respect of first charge memo dated 25.03.2005, thought fit to drop the charges, accordingly, by order dated 04.06.2010 all the charges issued in charge memo dated 25.03.2005 were dropped. In respect of the second charge memo, though they have completed the enquiry way back in the year 2007, on 24.12.2008 by sending proposal to the first respondent to pass final orders on the findings of the Enquiry Officer made a proposal therefor. In respect of third charge memo dated 27.08.2005, till date, by ignoring the fact that the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2005, failed to pass final order whatsoever. As a result, the petitioner has been put to a great and grave inconvenience in not getting his terminal and retirement benefits. 4. Adding further, he has mentioned that in respect of the charge memo dated 27.08.2005 the allegation levelled was that the petitioner has not obtained permission from the District Collector, Virudhunagar, for additional construction of his residential house but not relating to financial irregularities. Even on completion of the enquiry on the flimsy charges a proposal has already been forwarded to the first respondent by the second respondent on 20.01.2009. Even after a lapse of two and half years, no final order has been passed on the proposal made by the second respondent to the first respondent. Similarly, in respect of another charge memo dated 27.08.1995, though the criminal case has been filed against the others along with this petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner has issued transfer of patta on the application made by the parties, the same also came to be dismissed in favour of the petitioner on 02.12.2008, yet the respondents have not passed any final order. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner by bringing to the notice of this Court the nature of charge/allegation which prima facie appears to be a minor irregularity, not touching upon financial loss caused to the department, again emphasized that the petitioner has to face the final orders at the hands of the respondents. Had they passed the final order on the basis of the proposal made in 2008, the petitioner would not have suffered any major punishments. However, now all the three enquiries were over and in all three enquiries, the enquiry reports were also placed before the Disciplinary Authority by sending proposal. Therefore, if a direction is given to the respondents to pass final orders on the proposal made by the disciplinary authority, it would be helpful for the petitioner to see the result of the enquiry proceedings. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, after seeing the fact that the respondents have already dropped the charges in respect of charge memo dated 25.03.2005 by passing an appropriate order on 04.06.2010 and on seeing the further development in respect of remaining enquiries, would submit that he has no objection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 for issuing a direction to the respondents to pass further orders. Even though record shows that the respondents are taking serious steps to pass final orders, as admittedly two proposals have been forwarded in respect of second charge memo dated 25.08.2005 as early as 24.12.2008, but till date, no final order has been passed in respect of charge memo dated 25.08.2005, and another proposal also appeared to have been forwarded by the second respondent to first respondent on 20.01.2009 in respect of the charge memo dated 27.08.2005, more than two years have gone by, yet the first respondent has not come forward to pass any final order even on the proposals forwarded by the second respondent and even in respect of the last charge memo dated 27.08.2005, the criminal case has already been decided in favour of the petitioner. Taking note of the long pendency in passing only final orders, I do not find any impediments for the respondents to pass final orders on the remaining three charges when the Enquiry Officers have already submitted their final reports and thereupon even proposals also reported to have been sent to the disciplinary authority. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, by taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2005, the first respondent is hereby directed to complete the entire exercise including the passing of final orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default of passing final orders, all the proceedings shall stand lapsed, giving rise to the petitioner to receive the terminal retirement benefits as though he has retired on 31.08.2005. srm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, VIRUDHUNAGAR. +1 CC TO M/S.F.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE SR.NO.40326. +1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO.40342. Order made in W.P.(MD).No.12481 of 2011 Dated:17.11.2011 3P/5C RPB : 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/