1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1478 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai -6. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The District Educational officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. S.Sathya Kumar ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 16.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.8964 of 2010. WP(MD)No.8964 of 2010 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent Director vide charge memo in Na.Ka.No.115486/W1/E2/08, dated 29.01.2008 and quash the same. For Appellants : Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the writ Court, dated 16.08.2011, passed in W.P.(MD).No.8964 of 2010, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the second respondent, dated 29.01.2008. 2.The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal, are as hereunder: (a)The respondent herein has joined in the service as P.G. Assistant (English) in the Government Higher Secondary School, Karingal, Kanyakumari District, on 03.01.1979 and thereafter, he was promoted as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Headmaster (Higher Secondary) with effect from 27.01.1995. When there was a dispute regarding the regularization in the post of P.G. Assistant on the ground that his appointment on compassionate ground and he should be paid B.T. Assistant scale, he has approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for regularization as a P.G. Assistant and by order dated 22.12.1992, the Tribunal has directed to regularize the respondent's service with effect from the original appointment viz., on 03.01.1979 and the Special Leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.09.1994. Thereafter, the Joint Director of School Education, has regularized the service of the respondent with effect from 03.01.1979, by order dated 04.06.1996. (b)The respondent has been served with impugned charge memo, dated 21.09.2008, which is the subject matter of the challenge in W.P. (MD).No.8964 of 2010. The charge is that the respondent has not maintained accounts regarding the school development funds and therefore, violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. The respondent has submitted his explanation on 05.03.2008. The Committee constituted as School Development Committee has found that in respect of the maintenance of accounts for School Development Committee, the Headmaster has no role to play and since there was no progress, even after the submission of the explanation, the respondent has filed W.P. (MD).No.7565 of 2008 for a direction against the Director of School Education to complete the disciplinary proceedings, based on the charge memo, dated 29.01.2008. This Court, on 18.09.2008, after hearing both sides has directed the second appellant to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders within six months. Even after the lapse of six months, there was no proceedings initiated based on the charge memo and the second appellant was also not chosen to file a petition seeking the relief of extension of time for completion of the disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that till date the disciplinary proceedings has not been completed and therefore, the charge memo is challenged in W.P.(MD).No.8964 of 2010 before the writ Court. (c)The writ Court, after considering the submissions of both sides and also considering that even after the expiry of the period of six months, which expired as early as on 30.04.2009 and not even filed a petition seeking for the relief of extension of time to complete the disciplinary proceedings by the authorities, allowed the writ petition and consequently, quashed the impugned charge memo dated 29.01.2008 and also directed the appellants to include the name of the respondent in the panel for promotion in the year 2008-2009 and further directed that the promotional benefits to the respondent should be paid in accordance with law by passing necessary orders and such orders shall be passed within a period of eight weeks. As against the said order, the present writ appeal is preferred by the appellants herein. 3.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the respondent is facing grave charges and there is no delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that as there is Vigilance and Anti-Corruption case pending against the respondent, the authorities are not able to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time, as directed by this Court. It is submitted that the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the above said circumstances. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the specific ground taken in the counter is to the effect that due to the intervention of the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department, the authorities are not able to complete the disciplinary proceedings and as such, the order of the writ Court is liable to be set aside. 4.Per contra, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court and the writ Court has taken note of the deliberate conduct of the appellants for not completing the disciplinary proceedings, even after the expiry of the six months period. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that six months time granted to the authorities to complete the disciplinary proceedings was over as early as on 30.04.2009 itself and inspite of the same, the authorities were not even filed a petition to extend the time for the completion of the disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that even the writ petition itself was filed by the respondent one year and eight months after the expiry of the period already granted to the appellant for completing the disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that the writ Court has followed the earlier Division Bench direction given in this matter and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court for quashing the charge memo on the ground of non compliance of the direction given by this Court earlier to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated period of six months. 5.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record, including the order of the writ Court, dated 16.08.2011. 6.At the outset, it is to be stated that the respondent herein has already approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD). No.7565 of 2008 seeking for the relief of a direction to the Director of School Education to complete the disciplinary proceedings, initiated on the basis of the charge memo, dated 29.01.2008 and this Court, after hearing both sides passed an order, dated 18.09.2008, directing the authority concerned viz., the appellants herein to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order copy. It is pertinent to note that even after the expiry of the said six months period, the disciplinary authority has not completed its proceedings, initiated pursuant to the charge memo issued against the delinquent officer viz., the respondent herein. 7.The Special Government Pleader took enormous pain to contend that all the steps have been taken and certain witnesses have been examined, as per the counter filed in the writ petition, to the effect that the enquiry officer was directed to submit his report by the second respondent in the writ petition on 20.02.2010. At this stage, it is relevant to note that six months period given to the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/delinquent officer was expired as early as on 30.04.2009. The fact remains that till such expiry, the authorities concerned have not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 raised their little finger to take effective efforts to complete the disciplinary proceedings and on the other hand, the authorities have made an audacity by stating that they have taken steps long after the expiry of the six months period, i.e., only in the year 2010. It is very unfortunate to note that even thereafter only a lame excuse have come from the authority concerned to the effect that the concerned officer left to Nagercoil and he was busy in conducting the public examinations and as such, they were not able to complete the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time of six months. It is also very unfortunate to note that in the counter yet another lame excuse was given by the authority concerned to the effect that there was some intervention of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. But, on the other hand, the undisputed fact remains that the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department has not initiated any proceedings or any criminal proceedings is pending against the delinquent officer viz., the respondent herein. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the authorities concerned have come forward with a deliberate untenable excuse for not completing the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated period of six months. 8.It is to be noted that the respondent herein has approached the Court only after the expiry of one year and eight months period from the date of passing of the earlier order by this Court and fourteen months, after the expiry of the period of six months. However, it is also very unfortunate to note that the disciplinary authorities have not completed the disciplinary proceedings, even after the expiry of the period of more than three years and the writ Court has allowed the writ petition only after the period of three years and seven months by order dated 16.08.2011. It is also pertinent to note that the writ Court also placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the same is incorporated in paragraph No.6 of the writ order as hereunder: "23.We are conscious of the fact that if there is non-cooperation of the delinquent officer to comply with the time limit fixed by the Court/Tribunal to complete the enquiry and pass final orders in disciplinary proceedings, the Department cannot be blamed. In such contingency, it is for the Department to point out the non-cooperation on the part of the delinquent officer in finalising the proceeding and the hardships faced by the Department in not strictly adhering to the time schedule due to the fault of the delinquent officer or for any valid reason and get appropriate orders seeking extension of time. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that even if the time granted originally to complete the enquiry is over, nothing prevented the Department from filing appropriate application after expiry of the time. It is now well settled in law that application seeking extension of time can be filed and the Court are having inherent powers to grant further time, even though the original time granted got expired, based on the principles of invoking inherent powers to meet the ends of justice. In this case, there is no whisper about the non-cooperation of the petitioner in conducting the enquiry and completing the enquiry within the time. Hence, the Department is bound to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1535 of 2003". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 9.It is also pointed out by the writ Court that the Division Bench has arrived at such a conclusion, as incorporated above, only on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is stated by the writ Court in paragraph No.7 as hereunder: "In fact, the Division Bench of this Court arrived at such conclusion relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs.C.Muddaiah reported in (2007) 6 SCC 97 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the directions issued by the competent Court are to be obeyed strictly without any reservation and the same was also reproduced by the Division Bench which is in the following terms: "31.We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected". 10.Therefore, it is crystal clear that the writ Court has rightly followed the decision of this Court as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court to come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no justification for not completing the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated period of six months, as directed by this Court and the writ Court also pointed out that the authorities have not even bothered to file a petition seeking the relief of extension of time to complete the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, delinquent officer and quashed the impugned charge memo and directed the authorities to consider the inclusion of the name of the respondent herein in the panel for promotion to the year 2008-2009 and further directed that all promotional benefits shall be given to the respondent herein within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. 11.We are unable to see any ground warranting the interference of this Court in the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 To 1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai -6. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The District Educational officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 44587 Gcg SR : 09.01.2012 : 6p/6c Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2011 Dated:19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/