1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.6824 of 2011 C.Gnanasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner, and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Fort St., George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent passed in Proc. No.Ve.Po.Pa.4/127495/2009 dated 04-05-2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to consider the Promotion of the Petitioner as Assistant Director of Agriculture on par with his juniors with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate ORDER The writ petitioner is working as Agricultural Officer in the Tamil Nadu Agriculture Extension Service belonged to the State Government. Earlier, the petitioner was deputed to work as a Special Officer of the Ramanathapuram Agriculture Engineering Service Co- operative Centre. At that time, when he worked as Special Officer of the Society from 01.12.2004 to 30.09.2008, there were several commissions and omissions came to the notice of the State Government and therefore, after he was repatriated to the parent department a charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, dated 04.05.2011. Challenging the charge memo, the present writ petition came to be filed. 2. When the matter came up on 28.06.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion. Pending notice of motion, no interim order has been granted. 3. The two grounds raised by the petitioner were that he has put in sufficient period of service which is unblemished on record https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and therefore, there is no need to make any enquiry and secondly that the charge memo inasmuch as it relates to the events which took place from the year 2004 onwards and since there is a long delay in framing the charges which get vitiated. It is also claimed by him that some other charges were only the irregularities which only calls for a memo under Rule 17(a). However, this Court is not inclined to admit the said writ petition. 4. The primary contention that there was a delay cannot be accepted because the petitioner went on parent service on promotion to a co-operative society and therefore, it will take time to get a report regarding the working of the society. Annexure 3 to the charge memo refers as to the first document, an enquiry report made under Section 82 which was held against the working of the society. The list of witnesses also referred to one selection grade Co-operative Sub Registrar cum Inspector who conducted the enquiry. Therefore, it is only after he had left the society, the Registrar has ordered an enquiry into the working of the society and under Section 82 and thereafter, a report was submitted to the State Government and it also refers to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, dated 06.03.2000 and 12.05.2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an unexplained delay in framing charges against the petitioner. Along with charge memo, a questionnaire form was also explained and enquired by the respondent asking the petitioner as to whether he seeks for an oral enquiry and which are the witnesses he wants to be examined. Instead of replying to the charge memo, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Normally, a charge memo is liable to be interfered with only if it is issued by an authority who is incompetent to do so or if the mala fides alleged against such officer. In other respects, it is for the petitioner to give explanation to the charge memo whether the allegation made minor or major, it depends upon as to how one looks at the allegation. In any event, after the completion of the enquiry, the authority will take note of not only the defence but also the nature of allegation to be inflicted any punishment, if at all, the punishment is warranted under the circumstances of the case. 5. Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, learned Government Advocate states that the petitioner has also deposited the amounts which are said to be allegedly misappropriated by him which is another factor against the culpability of the petitioner. In any event, since this Court is not willing to comment upon the said statement as the matter is only at the stage of charge memo. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner, and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Fort St., George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.42076) Writ Petition (MD)No.6824 of 2011 29.11.2011 sms NSV/9.12.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/