D. Ravindran vs The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration

T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the charge memo issued by the Respondent in his proceedings No.

No. service 2(2)36298/08, dated 31.05.2010, and to quash the same.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was recruited in the year 1981 as Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office,

Ramanathapuram. After satisfactorily serving in various places without giving any room for complaint, his name was included in the approved list of

Deputy Collectors for the year 2006-2007, which shows that the Petitioner has discharged his duty without any blemish and further, his name has

been recommended to receive Anna Gallantry Award 2010 and he has also received letters of appreciation from his superior officers for his

dedication towards his work. Whileso, he was issued with a charge memo dated 31.05.2010 by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of

Revenue Administration, Chennai, for the period when he was serving as Tahsildar in Ramanathapuram Taluk, in the year 2001. The allegation

mentioned in the charge memo shows that the Petitioner had issued assignment of house site pattas free of cost to 40 persons without following the

prescribed procedure. As the alleged delinquency related to the year 2001, he contended that, No. charges can be framed against the Petitioner

with a delay of 10 years, since the belated charge memo is against the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D.,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, . In assailing the impugned charge memo, he further contended that allowing the Respondent to proceed further with

the departmental proceedings at this long distance of time with a delay of 10 years will be a prejudicial to the Petitioner.

In his further submission, it was contended that when this Court as well as the Apex Court have repeatedly held that the protracted disciplinary

proceedings against the government employee should be avoided, not only in the interest of government employee, but also in the public interest,

prolonged disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner is amounting to harassment, particularly, when the Respondent issued charge memo with a

delay of 10 years and as a result, he cannot recollect all those factors relating to the grant of assignment, which took place in the year 2001.

Therefore, at this long distance of time, if the initiation of enquiry is allowed, this would definitely prejudice to the Petitioner in defending his case

properly.

Moreover, he further contended that the charge memo issued after 10 years for an alleged incident took place in the year 2001, gives a clear-cut

impression that the impugned charge memo was issued only to exclude his name in the approved list of District Revenue Officer. Had the

Respondent initiated the disciplinary proceedings even in the year 2001, the Petitioner could have properly explained the entire case to the

satisfaction of the Respondent with all available records, but having failed to hold enquiry for about 10 years, it is not open to the Respondent to

issue a charge memo in the year 2010 for the allegation said to have taken place in the year 2001. Therefore, he contended that the impugned

charge memo dated 31.05.2010 is per-se illegal, for the reason that the impugned charge memo has been issued after an unusual delay of 9 years.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that while the Petitioner was serving as Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, he

had issued more than one patta to 40 families irregularly during the period from 17.08.2001 to 01.02.2003. Further, the pattas have been issued to

the non-residents of the said village and thereby, he has violated the existing orders of the Government. Therefore, the charges, under Rule 17(b)

of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, have been framed against the Petitioner in the charge memo dated 31.05.2010, hence,

he cannot file the present writ petition on the ground of delay, instead of facing the enquiry proceedings to prove his innocence. Though the incident

related to the year 2001, the complaints against him have been enquired into by the appropriate authority and after thorough investigation, the said

authority submitted its report to the Government and thereafter, the Government have ordered for departmental action against the Petitioner and

one another person. Therefore, the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. Further, it was argued that the delay would not wipe off the omissions and

commissions committed by the Petitioner, hence, he cannot absolve the responsibility by shifting the blame on the administration on the ground of

delay. Therefore, he further pleaded that the post of District Revenue Officer is a selection post, for which he has to maintain a crystal clear and

unblemished record and on that basis, he pleaded for dismissal of the present writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Though the Petitioner was recruited in the year 1981 as a Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram, he was found suitable to be

promoted to the post of Deputy Collector in the year 2006-2007 and thereafter, he has been serving as District Supply Officer at Namakkal. The

records produced before this Court indicate that the Respondent, on seeing the performance in the post of District Supply Officer, has

recommended him to receive Anna Gallantry Award 2010. In the meanwhile, he was also served with a charge memo in Ser. No. 2(2)36298/08,

dated 31.05.2010, by the Respondent, in and by which, it was alleged that the Petitioner had issued assignment of house site pattas free of cost to

40 persons without following the prescribed procedure. The date of the alleged delinquency is related to the year 2001. After 2001, the Petitioner

was found suitable for the post of Deputy Collector and accordingly, he was also promoted as Deputy Collector and again, he was further

promoted to the post of District Supply Officer. Whileso, after an inordinate delay of 9 years, the Petitioner was directed to appear for

departmental enquiry in the year 2010. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the lapse of 9 years in issuing the charge memo in the year 2010 for

the alleged incident took place in the year 2001, is arbitrary or reasonable, that too, when the Petitioner is aspiring for promotion to the post of

District Revenue Officer and also when he has completed 30 years of service.

When the Petitioner had issued house site pattas free of cost to 40 persons without following the prescribed procedure under the Revenue

Standing Orders, in the year 2001, the Respondent department should have then and there initiated necessary departmental proceedings against

the Petitioner and if he was found guilty of the proven charges, then, undoubtedly, he should have been visited with suitable punishment in the year

2001 or 2002. But, the department has kept quite almost for 9 years. In the meanwhile, the name of the Petitioner was also inducted in the

approved list for the post of Deputy Collectors and subsequently, he was further promoted to the post of District Supply Officer and posted at

Namakkal. Now, when the Petitioner is aspiring for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer, he has been directed to participate in the

departmental proceedings, by issuing the present charge memo dated 31.05.2010.

Further, the counter filed by the Respondent does not disclose why there has been an inordinate delay of 9 years for initiating the disciplinary

proceedings against the Petitioner for the alleged incident that took place in the year 2001. The only reason given by the Respondent in their

counter was that the Government have examined the allegation against the Petitioner and after examination, the Government have ordered for

departmental action against the Petitioner and one another person and it was also stated that before submission of the report, more than 50

witnesses have been enquired by the appropriate authority into the allegations levelled against the Petitioner and Ors. therefore, the Respondent

could not proceed against the Petitioner, does not find force, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan''s case (cited

supra). The Apex Court in the said judgment held as follows:

The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the government

employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is

necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The Appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary

proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the Appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much

more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the Appellant

should not be made to suffer.

We therefore, have No. hesitation to quash the charge issued against the Appellant. The appeal is allowed. The Appellant will be entitled to all

the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No. cost

In the cases on hand, the delay of 9 years in issuing charge memo has to be analysed, as to whether the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the

above said judgment would apply to the present case. When the Hon''ble Apex Court has quashed the enquiry on the ground that 9 years of

unexplained delay has vitiated the enquiry and held that the High Court ought to have interfered in that matter, I am also of the considered view that

in the present case, since the Respondent has not initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner in appropriate time i.e., in the year 2001

or immediately, thereafter, the issuance of charge memo in the year 2010 with a delay of 9 years, as held by the Apex Court, an unexplained delay

of 9 years in issuing the charge memo would vitiate the enquiry and cause grave prejudice to the delinquent. Therefore, the protracted disciplinary

proceedings and long delay in issuing charge memo itself being a harassment, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to

be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.

In result, the writ petition is allowed. No. Costs.