1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/7/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)Nos.8303 and 8304 of 2011 R.Subbian ... Petitioner in both the petitions. Vs 1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Additional Director of Agriculture (Personnel Management) Office of the Commissioner of the Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 3. The Joint Director of Agriculture Collectorate, Theni District. 4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture Periyakulam at Vadugapatty Theni District. ... Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.8303 of 2011 a n d 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture Collectorate,Theni District. ..Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.8304/2011 Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.8303 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings vide No.CCA (OS) 3/219137/04 dated 31/12/2004 and the consequential proceedings vide No.CCA (OS) 3/219137/04 dated 31/12/2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith settle all the monetary, pensionary and other benefits due to the petitioner within a time frame. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.8304 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings vide Govt.Letter No.651/AA-2/2007-17 Agriculture Department dated 20/12/2010 and quash the same as illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, GA COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed to quash the order and consequential orders of the second respondent dated 31/12/2004 and direct the respondents to forthwith settle the monetary, pensionary and other benefits due to the petitioner and to quash the order of the first respondent dated 20/12/2010. 2. Considering the grievance expressed by the writ petitioner that he is under suspension for nearly 7 years and not allowed to retire on account of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, belatedly by the first respondent and also of the fact that orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010 and W.P.(MD) No.8074 of 2010 and 8075 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, that in similar circumstances, this Court has quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate was put on notice and directed to get instruction from the respondents, as to whether any appeal had been preferred against the orders stated supra and also to examine similarity of the facts and the order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion. 3. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, he submitted that the respondents have sought for time. Though the respondents have not furnished any remarks as to the applicability of the judgments stated supra to the facts of this case, perusal of the orders made in the above writ petitions, namely W.P.(MD)No.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010 and W.P.(MD) No.8074 of 2010 and 8075 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, and the facts of the present case, I find that there is similarity in all respects, including the delay. I have also followed the above judgments and allowed a writ petition (MD) No.7652 of 2011 on 11.07.2011. 4. Pleadings and materials on record disclose that earlier, Government have initiated prosecution against various officials belonging to the Agricultural Department and First Information Reports were also registered. Subsequently, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.210, Agricultural Department AA-2 dated 09.10.2009, has withdrawn the prosecution. Earlier, when the prosecution was pending, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service. In G.O.(2D)No.88, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD.II) Department, dated 30.06.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated. 5. Pleadings further disclose that while withdrawing the prosecution, the Government have ordered departmental action in G.O.No.210, Agriculture Department AA-2, dated 09.10.2009. Pursuant to the said directions, charges have been framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that when the petitioner was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer, Genguvarpatty, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, he had issued identity cards without field inspection and without verifying the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 ownership of lands and without attesting the photos affixed in the identity cards which facilitated the middle men and traders to sell copra in D.D.110. 6. Orders in G.O.(2-D) No.88 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 and G.O.(3-D) No.26 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-II) Department dated 30.06.2005 have been challenged mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403.; in W.A.Nos.586 and 587 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007; in W.A.No.610 of 2008, dated 06.03.2009; in T.N.Principal Secretary Home (SC) Department, Chennai and another Vs. R.Ramarajan, IPS Superintendent of Police T.N.Commando Ch-28 and other, reported in 2009(3) TLNJ 132 (Civil); and in B.K.Gunasekaran v. State of T.N. reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 161. 7. Attention of this Court was also invited to an order made in W.P.No.8924 of 2006 & 6508 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010 in L.Frederick Jayaseelan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others), wherein this Court, after considering the facts and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (stated supra) and other cases, has quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners therein. At paragraph No.8 of the order, a learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows:- “In view of the judicial dictum laid down by the Apex Court, applying the same to the facts of the present case, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the order of suspension as well as the impugned charge memo are illegal. Since the respondent has not chosen to explain the reason for delay, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memo is liable to be set aside.” 8. As there is similarity of the facts, with the judgments stated supra and of the fact that disciplinary action initiated against the officials of the Agriculture Department for the alleged delinquency has been quashed in many cases, and of the fact that no appeal seemed to have been filed against the order made in W.P.Nos.8924 of 2006 and 6508 of 2009 dated 17.03.2010 and W.P.Nos.8074 and 8075 of 2010 dated 15.06.2011, this Court is inclined to grant the relief prayed for. 9. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned orders are set aside, consequently, the respondents are directed to send the pension proposals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 10. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Additional Director of Agriculture (Personnel Management) Office of the Commissioner of the Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 3. The Joint Director of Agriculture Collectorate, Theni District. 4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture Periyakulam at Vadugapatty Theni District. +2cc to Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore, Advocate SR.No.24761 and 24762 +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleder SR.No.24936 Writ Petition (MD)Nos.8303 and 8304 of 2011 26/7/2011 mvs PA/08.08.2011/4P/8C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/