Madras High Court
M.Manonmani vs The Director on 14 June, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.6.2012
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.25688 of 2011
M.MANONMANI [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURIES
PANAGAL BUILDING
SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-15.
2 THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TREASURY
OFFICER FOR NILGIRIS DISTRICT
OOTY, NILGIRIS DISTRICT. [ RESPONDENTS ]
This 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 orders dated 16.07.2010 in Mandhanam 2/2009 A1 and dated 20.06.2011 in Na.Ka.No.43094/2010/Q3 issued by the 2nd and 1st Respondent respectively, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the Petitioner increment with all consequential benefits and also to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer for the years 2010 and 2011 and to promote him to the said post based on the Petitioner seniority with all arrears and consequential benefits award costs.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Makesh
For respondents : Mr.S.P.Prabakaran AGP
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It had been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant at Ooty in the year, 1983. The petitioner has been working as a Superintendent in the District Treasury Office, Ooty from 16.8.2007.
3. It had also been stated that, since the date of appointment, the petitioner had been discharging her duties diligently, without any blemish. However, when the petitioner is due to retire from service, she has been imposed with the punishment of increment cut, for six months, without cumulative effect, based on the charges levelled against her, by way of a charge memo, dated 11.5.2010, issued under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. In the said charge memo, four charges had been levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner had violated Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The second charge was that the petitioner had failed to follow the said Rules knowing full well its implications. The third charge was that the petitioner had lent money beyond the permissible limits without obtaining the prior permission from the Department concerned, in violation of Rule 6(4)(h) (aa) of the said Rules. The fourth charge was that the petitioner had created a bad name to the state Government and the Department concerned by violating the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.
4. It had also been stated that even though the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the charges levelled against her, on 27.5.2010, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 16.7.2010, imposing the punishment of increment cut, for six months, without cumulative effect, holding her guilty of all the charges.
5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal, dated 14.9.2010, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 16.7.2010. Even though the petitioner had contended, with the necessary documents to support her claims, that she did not lend any money, contrary to the relevant Rules, and that it was only due to certain circumstances, she had filed a civil suit to reclaim the money, which she had paid to one Tmt.Lakshmi Ammal, in order to discharge the liability of one Nanjundan, she had been alleged to have violated the relevant Rules.
6. It had been further stated that the first respondent appellate authority had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, by an order, dated 20.6.2011, confirming the order of punishment issued by the second respondent.
7. It had been further stated that the first respondent had not considered the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner and no reasons had been given to reject the claims made by the petitioner. The first respondent had concurred with the decision of the second respondent, by way of a non-speaking order. Further, the documents filed by the petitioner in support of her claims made in the appeal had not been considered by the appellate authority, while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.
8. It had also been stated that no enquiry had been conducted, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The charge memo issued by the second respondent cannot be sustained, as it had been issued after a delay of nearly 13 years from the date of the alleged occurrence. As such, the impugned orders of the respondents are arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been denied.
10. It had been stated that the claim of the petitioner that she had arranged the loan for her colleague Nanjundan, by introducing Lakshmi Ammal, is false. The petitioner had entered into a financial transaction with Nanjundan, in spite of knowing full well that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, prohibits lending of money, above the prescribed limit, without obtaining the prior permission from the Department concerned.
11. It had been further submitted that a charge memo, dated 11.5.2010, had been issued to the petitioner, containing four charges. As the explanation, dated 27.5.2010, submitted by the petitioner, was not satisfactory in nature, and as the facts relating to the lending of money, by the petitioner to Nanjundan, were on record, in view of the civil suit filed by the petitioner, for the recovery of the amount, no detailed enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner. As such, it is clear that the petitioner had involved in lending of money, contrary to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decisions in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D.TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD (2005 (4) CTC 403 (SC), G.ADAVAN Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (2010 (2) MLJ 1007 (MAD), and M.SHAJAHAN Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE (AA-2) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER, (W.P.(MD) No.11345 OF 2011), dated 30.9.2011, in support of his contentions that a long and an unexplained delay in initiating proceedings against a person, by levelling certain charges, by way of a charge memo, would be unsustainable in the eye of law.
13. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court does not find sufficient reasons to set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents, imposing the punishment of increment cut for six months.
14. It is noted from the available records that the petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.81 of 1998, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, based on a promissory note, to recover a sum of Rs.42,000/- from one Nanjundan. The lending of money beyond the permissible limit, without obtaining the prior permission from the respondent Department, is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to state that she had filed the suit only for the purpose of recovering the money paid to Lakshmi Ammal, for and on behalf of Nanjundan, in order to discharge her liability. The petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. Further, the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be set aside merely on the ground that no enquiry had been conducted. No enquiry would not be necessary, when the petitioner had filed a civil suit accepting the fact that the said suit was being filed for the recovery of the money borrowed by Nanjundan from the petitioner.
15. Further, it cannot be said that there has been a long and unexplained delay in issuing a charge memo against the petitioner levelling certain charges with regard to the incident that had happened nearly 13 years back. In fact, it has been shown on behalf of the respondents that there has been no inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, as it has been done within a reasonable time from the time when the respondents had knowledge relating to the lending of money by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.
lan To:
1 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TREASURIES PANAGAL BUILDING SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-15.
2 THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER FOR NILGIRIS DISTRICT OOTY, NILGIRIS DISTRICT