1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P. (MD) No.6456 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 K. Balasubramanian Petitioner vs. The Principal District Judge Ramanathapuram Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent passed in D.E. No.1/11 dated 14.06.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire on 30th June 2011 with all monetary and attendant benefits. For petitioner Mr. Veera. Kathiravan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo dated 14.06.2011 issued by the respondent herein. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges have to be quashed on the ground of delay itself. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the charges levelled against the petitioner, the occurrence has taken place in 2004; but, the charge memo has been issued only in 2011, i.e. after a period of seven years; under such circumstances, as per paragraph nos.10-12 of the judgment reported in 2011 (1) CWC 533, K. Vijhay Sasi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 and 3 others, on the ground of delay itself, the charge memo has to be quashed. 3. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge memo has been issued without proper application of mind, i.e., even as per the explanation submitted by the co-delinquent, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the allegation levelled against him; apart from this, when the cheques have been deposited, the question of misappropriation does not arise at all; however, one of the allegations levelled against the petitioner is mis-appropriation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The next stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is the State Vice President of the Judicial Ministerial Employees Association and also District President of Judicial Ministerial Employees Service and since he had submitted two representations with regard to frequent transfer of Office Assistants in the concerned District, the impugned charge memo has been issued to him; apart from this, some of the allegations have taken place prior to the petitioner's joining in the particular station. Based on these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned charge memo has to be quashed. 5. We are not inclined to accept any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as delay in issuance of charge memo is concerned, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence has taken place in 2004, whereas, the impugned charge memo has been issued only in the year 2011. As far as this stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner also that having known the occurrence as early as 2004, the respondent has kept quiet for a period of seven years and issued charge memo only in 2011. As far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, only when it comes to the notice of the concerned authority, appropriate action can be taken. When it is not the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that knowing fully well about the alleged occurrence, the respondent had kept quiet for a period of seven years, even the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not be of any help to the petitioner. 6. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-application of mind on the part of the respondent, it relates to factual aspect of it and only in the enquiry to be conducted, this factual aspect can be decided based on the documents to be filed by either side and not at this stage of the disciplinary proceedings. 7. As far as the other stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is the State Vice President of the Judicial Ministerial Employees Association and also District President of Judicial Ministerial Employees Service , the impugned charge memo has been issued is concerned, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. When that is the position, we are not able to understand as to how this ground will be helpful to the petitioner. Apart from this, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as an office bearer of the aforesaid two associations, the petitioner has submitted two representations with regard to frequent transfer of Office Assistants in the concerned district. In what way, the submission of two representations by the petitioner has provoked the respondent to initiate action against the petitioner and how that can be a base for initiating action against the petitioner has not been explained. Under such circumstances, this ground also fails. 8. Consequently, we are not willing to entertain this writ petition. However, since it is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is going to reach the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011, the respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and to pass final orders within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Principal District Judge Ramanathapuram cad W.P. (MD) No.6456 of 2011 21.06.2011 TR : 08.07.2011 : 3p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/