Madras High Court
The Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative ... vs Ezhilbharathi on 16 July, 2021
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.Nos.450 and 451 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.1770, 1772 and 1773 of 2021
The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
(Housing), Chennai Region,
Chennai-17. .. Appellant in WA No.450/2021
1. The Government of TAmil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Cooperation, Food and Consumer
Protection Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Chennai Region, Chennai-10.
3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
(Housing), Chennai Region,
Chennai-17. .. Appellants in WA No.451/2021
Vs.
Ezhilbharathi .. Respondent / Petitioner in
both the appeals
***
Prayer in W.A.No.450/2021 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 20.04.2018 passed in
W.P.No.9837 of 2014.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021
Prayer in W.A.No.451/2021 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 20.04.2018 passed in
W.P.No.21042 of 2014.
***
For Appellants in : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
both the appeals State Government Counsel
For Respondent in: Mr.M.Ravi
both the appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.) The State filed these appeals against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2018 made in W.P.No.9837 and 21042 of 2014.
2. In W.P.No.9837 of 2014, the writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, sought to quash the charge memo issued to her dated 21.03.2014. She filed W.P.No.21042 of 2014 seeking a direction to the appellants herein to include her name in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies for the year 2013-2014, without reference to the said charge memo, which was altered vide erratum dated 25.03.2014. 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021
3. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, she joined the Co-operative Department on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant and was promoted as Senior Inspector during 1989. She had gone on Loss of pay leave from 25.07.1989 to 30.06.1990 and absented herself from duty from 01.07.1990 onwards owing to her domestic problems. Thus, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1046, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 13.11.1987, which was amended as Rule 18(3) of the Fundamental Rules, a charge memo dated 25.02.1992 was issued to her. She questioned the same in O.A.No.980 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (TAT), which was taken up along with a batch of similar applications for hearing and vide order dated 06.07.2000, the orders impugned therein were quashed remitting back the matter to the authorities for fresh action. But based on the said charge memo dated 25.02.1992, which was quashed by the TAT, she was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect.
3.1. The writ petitioner submitted representation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 25.06.2007 to include her name in the promotion panel dated 01.05.1994, which was rejected on 31.07.2008, by relying upon the interim order of the TAT dated 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 23.12.1994, without referring to the final order dated 06.07.2000.
3.2. The writ petitioner's absence from 01.07.1990 to 31.03.1992 was regularized as Extraordinary Leave without Medical Certificate by relaxing the rules vide G.O.No.(d)No.93, Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.03.2004.
3.3. As her efforts to get empaneled in the promotion panel proved futile, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19330 of 2012, which was allowed by this Court on 20.12.2013. Thereafter, the said order was implemented on 19.03.2014.
3.4. According to the writ petitioner, second charge memo dated 21.03.2014 was issued against her, claiming to be issued based on the liberty granted by the TAT in the order dated 06.07.2000. Thus, W.P.No.9837 of 2014 came to be filed by the petitioner, in which, an order of interim stay was granted in her favour on 08.04.2014.
3.5. Even thereafter, when the promotion panel for the post of Deputy Registrar was prepared, her name was not included citing the pending charge memo. Hence, she sent a representation dated 29.05.2014 to the respondents to consider the inclusion of her name in the promotion panel. Seeking the said relief, she instituted W.P.No.21042 of 2014.
4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 3.6. The learned Single Judge passed the common order dated 20.04.2018 allowing the writ petitions.
4. The learned State Government Counsel contended that the charge memo impugned in the writ petition was issued based on the liberty granted by the TAT and as a consequence, pending the charge memo, the name of the writ petitioner was not included in the promotion panel. It is his submission that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions, without considering these aspects in right perspective.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner sought to sustain the impugned order stating that the learned Single Judge considered all the grounds raised by the Government and negatived the same in the well-reasoned order and the same need not be interfered with.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants / Government and the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021
7. It is to be stated that the charge memo dated 25.02.1992 issued at the first instance against the writ petitioner was set aside by the TAT in the order dated 06.07.2000 and the issue was remitted back to the authorities for fresh action. But, based on the very same charge memo, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect was imposed against the writ petitioner. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies also rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking to include her name in the promotion panel dated 01.05.1994 and to do so, he relied upon the interim order of the TAT dated 23.12.1994, but not referred to the final order dated 06.07.2000. When the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.19330 of 2012, this Court passed the following order on 20.12.2013, which was quoted by the appellants in the counter-affidavits filed before the learned Single Judge in the subject writ petitions, i.e, W.P.Nos.9837 and 21042 of 2014 :
"13.From the aforesaid letter No.3568/CH1/11-7, dated 11.01.2012 of the 1 Respondent addressed to the 2nd st Respondent, it is clear that the 1st Respondent made a categorical mention that by virtue of the O.A.No.980/95 Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Orders action should have been initiated afresh against the Applicant (Writ Petitioner), if the authority so desires. Hence, the orders passed on 30.04.2001 based on the charge memo already 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 issued is not in consonance with the aforesaid Tribunal Order and further directed to request the 2nd Respondent to initiate fresh action against the Petitioner (then Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies) and to take further action to include her name in the Co-operative Sub Registrar's Panel as on 01.05.1994 as per the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR (S) Department, dated 18.10.1993 and in the Government Letter No.90586/94-2, dated 17.05.1995.
14.It appears that no fresh action against the Petitioner has been initiated by the authorities concerned. As a matter of fact, the 1st Respondent, in the proceedings in Letter No.3568/CH1/2011-7 dated 11.1.2012, has clearly held that the orders passed on 30.4.2001 by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai Region (based on the charge memo already issued) were not in consonance with the aforesaid Tribunal order. Therefore, the said order dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies is considered to be a non est, in the eye of law.
15.As a logical corollary, the order dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies stands erased in the eye of Law. When the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect by virtue of the order dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Joint Registrar is not there in the eye of law, then, it is to be construed that the Petitioner has a clean slate and as such, she is rightfully entitled to get her name included in the Cooperative Sub Registrar's Panel as on 01.05.1994 in terms of the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR (S) Department dated 18.10.1993 and in the Government letter No.90586/94-2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 17.05.1995. Viewed in that perspective, 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 the Writ Petition succeeds.
16.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd Respondent is hereby directed to implement the orders issued by the 1st Respondent to include the name of the Petitioner in the Panel for promotion to the post of Co- operative Sub Registrar as on 01.05.1994 (subject to eligibility and suitability), at the appropriate place and to confer all consequential attendant monetary benefits thereto and consequently to consider the case of the Petitioner in regard to the inclusion of her name in the promotion panel to the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Subject to suitability and eligibility) and to pass a reasoned speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ...."
Thereafter, the said order was implemented on 19.03.2014.
8. It is also relevant to state that the appellant in W.A.No.450 of 2021 in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit made the following admission :
"(4). .... Subsequent to the common order passed by the Honourable Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.630/1991 and batch on 06.07.2000 the Government of Tamil Nadu, on the representation of the petitioner requesting for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar, issued instructions for considering the name of the petitioner for the promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar in the panel as on 1.5.1994 and also to initiate fresh charges as per the orders of Hounourable Tribunal dated 6.7.2000. It was held 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 by the Government that the first orders of the Joint Registrar, Chennai Region dated 30.04.2001 disposing the charges framed on 25.02.1992 against the petitioner was contrary and not in consonance with the directions of the Honourable Tribunal."
9. From the above, it is clear that even according to the Government, the order of the Joint Registrar, Chennai Region dated 30.04.2001, the basis of which is the charge memo dated 25.02.1992, was contrary and not in consonance with the directions of the Honourable Tribunal. The said appellant had deliberately not mentioned the date on which such advice was issued by the Government.
10. In such backdrop, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the charge memo impugned in the writ petition dated 21.03.2014, having been issued nearly about 14 years from the date of the order passed by the TAT is valid in the eye of law ?
11. It is settled position that the charge memo should not be ordinarily interfered with by the Courts while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but at the same 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 time, it is also well-settled that inordinate and unexplained delay in issuance of the charge memo would vitiate the departmental proceedings.
12. In the cases on hand, the TAT quashed the earlier charge memo on 06.07.2000, but the impugned charge memo was issued only on 21.03.2014. There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellants for the inordinate delay, except stating that the disciplinary proceedings was proceeded with based on the earlier charge memo dated 25.02.1992. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (4) CTC 403, held as follows :
"7. The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition."
13. The impugned charge memo was issued more than 13 years, after quashing of the earlier charge memo by the TAT giving 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021 liberty to the appellants to proceed afresh and having found that no acceptable reason was placed by the appellants for the inordinate delay, the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the charge memo dated 21.03.2014 and the said order requires no interference from this Court.
14. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the appellants are directed to settle all service and monetary benefits to the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
16.07.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
gg
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.Nos.450 & 451 of 2021
16.07.2021
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/