Madras High Court
C.Jaganathan vs The Secretary To Government
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.11317 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on Orders Pronounced on
24.02.2020 11.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.11317 of 2015
1 C.Jaganathan
No.16/43 Thiruvalluvar Street, Gandhi Nagar
Saligramam Chennai-93. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Secretary to Government,
Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and
Water Supplies Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2 The Commissioner of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam Chennai-108. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the order in Na.Ka.No.18773/2005/A5 dated 27.06.2008 of
the 2nd Respondent and the consequential order in G.O.(Pathandu) No.334
Municipal Administration and Water Supplies (Peru4) Department dated
27.06.2013 and the order in Letter No. 27376/Peru4/2013-4 dated 11.04.2014
of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to
grant the pensionary and retiral benefits as applicable with reference to last
1/24
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.11317 of 2015
drawn pay with all consequential and attendant benefits with 18% interest
within a time frame by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Thangavelu, Spl.G.P.
*****
ORDER
Factual matrix of the writ petition is as follows:
The petitioner entered into the service as Clerk in Valasaravakkam Panchayat and promoted as Executive officer - Selection Grade. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.3.2007, one day before the date of retirement (31.3.2007) on superannuation.
(i) While the petitioner was working as Executive Officer, Podatturpet Town Panchayat, served with charge memo on 7.1.1997 by the second respondent framing 11 charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules based on the audit objections. The allegations pertaining to the period 1994-1995.
(ii) The petitioner had submitted his explanation denying the charges. Enquiry officer was appointed on 17.10.1997 and the enquiry officer in his report, dated 10.11.1998 held nine out of eleven charges as proved and the remaining two charges as not proved.2/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015
(iii) The petitioner submitted further representation on 20.12.2002 stating that the findings of the enquiry officer were not supported by any evidence and there were no definite findings arrived at by the enquiry officer.
(iv) When the audit objections were dropped on 24.9.1999, the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 27.6.2008, issued the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.
(v) Thereafter, the petitioner filed statutory appeal on 27.8.2008 before the first respondent and also filed writ petition in W.P.No.23685 of 2009 to dispose of the appeal within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
(vi) This Court by order, dated 19.11.2009 directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within six weeks.
(vii) Thereafter, the first respondent sought for opinion of the Tamil nadu Public Service Commission on the appeal petition.
(viii) Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission opined that all the charges framed based on the audit objections were dropped by the authority as early as on 24.9.1999 and no financial loss was occurred. But the petitioner had not made available the files to the Audit party on the date of audit, to prove his worthiness. While that be so, the principles of natural justice required the modification of the punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement.
3/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015
(ix) Based on the opinion of the TNPSC, the first respondent issued order on the appeal petition of the petitioner, dt.27.8.2008, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement vide G.O.Ms.No.334, dated 27.6.2013 and the same was served to the petitioner.
(x) Further, the first respondent issued a letter, dated 11.4.2014 to the effect that in view of the modification of the order of compulsory retirement, 1/3 of the amount from pension and D.C.R.G. to be recovered from the retiral benefits under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
(xi) Despite the final orders passed by the first respondent, no retiral benefits paid and no monthly pension also paid to the petitioner.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated as under:
(i) Based on the various disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, relating to disobedience, violation of rules in vogue in getting approval of resolution from Town Panchayats and other serious irregularities, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.3.2007 and the petitioner was not permitted to retire on reaching the supperannuation i.e. 31.7.2007 as per rules 56(1) (c ).4/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015
(ii) The petitioner while working as Executive Officer, Pothadurpet Town Panchayat in Tiruvallur district had perpetrated serious financial irregularities which ultimately caused loss to the Town Panchayat funds surfaced during the audit. As such, 11 charges have been framed against him under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.
(iii) Followed by charge memo, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to remit the amount of Rs.10,728/-. The petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice. Hence, the petitioner was placed under suspension under rule 17(e) of Tamil nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules and three charges were framed in charge memo Roc.No.18797/2003/B2, dated 18.8.2003.
(iv) The petitioner has challenged the charge memo Roc.No.18797/ 2003/B2, dated 18.8.2003 stating that the charges framed against him were already covered as a charge No.10 in the earlier charge memo framed against him for which final orders were already issued and prayed to nullify the charge memo issued by the second respondent.
(v) The impugned charge memo, dated 18.8.2003 states that he has disobeyed the orders of the second respondent since the amount intended to be paid to the workers under JVVT scheme which culminates the integrity of 5/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 the petitioner. Hence, nature of the charge memo is entire different from the earlier charge memo No.10, dated 7.1.1997.
(vi) The disciplinary cases pending against the petitioner are different in nature i.e. one pertains to irregularities and another pertains to integration of his official career. Both disciplinary cases were dealt separately and in one case, the charge memo, dt.9.1.1997 had reached its finality in culminating the penalty of compulsory retirement. In respect of charge memo, dt.18.8.2003, further disciplinary action is proposed to be continued under rule 9 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to retire compulsorily as per rule 8 of D & A rules.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled by the second respondent to remit the amount of Rs.10,728/- (Audit objection amount). The petitioner had refused to remit the same stating that the said amount was duly paid as per Register to the labourers who carried out the work under J.V.V.T. and when the fact remains 6/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 thus, if he remitted the amount it would lead to a conclusion that he had committed theft of the said amount as early as in 1994-1995. Therefore, charge memo was issued on 7.1.1997.
(i) Further, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its opinion has stated that the findings of the enquiry officer are unacceptable since the Enquiry Officer proceeded based on surmise, presumption and speculation and hence the findings are not supported by recordical evidence.
(ii) Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its opinion further stated that all the charges were framed duly based on Audit objections and they were subsequently dropped on 24.9.1999 viz., after the enquiry officer's report, by the authority by adopting due process of procedure and no financial loss sustained by the Panchayat.
(iii) The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission further observed that the final order of dismissal from service, dated 27.6.1998, was issued after the lapse of 11 years from the issuance of charge memo, dated 07.01.1997 and as such it would be presumed that such a punishment of dismissal from service in the nature of revengeful action on the score that it was issued because the employee refused to remit the amount as directed by the second respondent.
7/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015
(iv) Having held so, the T.N.P.S.C recommended the modification of the punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement.
(v) The petitioner was working in Padatturpet Town Panchayat during 1994-1995 and transferred to other station. During the time of Audit being conducted in Padatturpet Town Panchayat in 1996, he was not working in that Town Panchayat. The concerned staff working in the said Town Panchayat had not produced the relevant file and records to the Audit Party at the time of auditing the accounts. But, subsequently, relevant records were traced out and produced by the petitioner and hence, Audit objections dropped by the Audit Party on 24.9.1999. There was no loss to the Town Panchayat. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was not warranted and that too disproportionate to the alleged allegation which were not proved on the basis of recordical evidence as observed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission In support of his submission, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011 (4) SCC 589 wherein it was held that a copy of the advice of the Public Service Commission must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise, there will be violation of principles of natural justice. In the case on hand, the copy of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission opinion was not communicated to the petitioner 8/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 before passing the impugned punishment order and the same was annexed with the final order. The consequential order of the first respondent, dated 11.4.2014, imposing a recovery of 1/3 of the amount from pension and D.C.R.G. from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is unsustainable and disproportionate to the alleged charge framed based on the Audit objection which was subsequently dropped by the authority.
(vi) Further, there was inordinate delay in passing the order of punishment of dismissal from service by the second respondent on 27.6.2008 for the alleged occurrence taken place during the period 1994-95. Again, when the statutory appeal preferred on 27.8.2008, there was no order from the first respondent for one year and thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23685 of 2009 and this Court by order, dated 19.11.2009 directed the respondent to dispose of the appeal within six weeks. Consequently, the second respondent issued order, dated 27.6.2013 modifying the punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement and the consequential order imposing recovery of 1/3 of the pension and D.C.R.G. But, so far, no order is passed settling the pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner and monthly pension also not sanctioned by the authorities. Thus, there was a delay of more than 17 years. For the inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in the aforesaid manner, the learned counsel 9/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, 2005 (4) MLJ 659 and 2012 (4) MLJ 576.
(vii) Further, there was no advise from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for recovery of 1/3 pension and D.C.R.G. On the contrary, the order of recovery of 1/3 of amount from pension and D.C.R.G. was issued by the first respondent on 11.4.2014. Hence, the consequential order, dated 11.4.2013 punishment imposing 1/3 recovery of Pension & D.C.R.G. is invalid under law and not in consonance with the Sub Rule (2) of Rule 39 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision reported in 1985 (1) SCC 429 [STATE OF KERALA VS. M.PADMANABAN], inter alia, held that ''Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The above principle has been reiterated in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210.
5. In support of his submissions, apart from the aforesaid citations, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
10/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015
(i) RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [2008 (3) CTC 781]
(ii) SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA [2012 (12) SCC 565]
(iii) UNION OF INDIA VS. S.K.KAPOOR [2011 (4) SCC 589]
(iv) M.ELANGOVAN VS. TRICHY CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK AND ANOTHER [2006 (3) MLJ 621
(v) THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CHENNAI-9 VS. N.PONNIAH AND ANOTHER [2007 WLR 903 (DB)]
(vi) G.ADAVAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF T.N. & ANOTHER [2010 (2) MLJ 1007]
(vii) K.DEIVENDRAN VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL [2012 (4) MLJ 576
(viii) DR.M.RAMULA VS. STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER [2014 (1) MLJ 335
(ix) MOHAMMED SADIQUE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS [2009 (4) CTC 209 (DB) ]
(x) S.BASKARAN AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2011 (7) MLJ 58 (DB)]
(xi) R.KANNAN VS. DIRECTOR MEDICAL AND RURAL HEALTH SERVICES AND OTHERS 2013 (7) MLJ 505 (DB)
(xii) R.RAJKUMAR VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRICHY [2014 (2) CTC 769 (DB) ]
(xiii) S.MANICKAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [2015 (4) MLJ 553] 11/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 27.06.2008, the order passed by the Appellate Authority viz., the first respondent herein in G.O.(Pathandu) No.334 Municipal Administration and Water Supplies (Peru4) Department dated 27.06.2013 and the consequential order in Letter No. 27376/Peru4/2013-4 dated 11.04.2014 are liable to be quashed.
6. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner committed serious financial irregularities which ultimately caused loss to the Town Panchayat and the same came to light during audit. Therefore, 11 charges have been framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to remit the amount of Rs.10,728/-. Since there is no response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the said Rule. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not at all convincing, out of 11 charges, 9 charges were held as proved against the petitioner. Further, opinion of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was obtained before passing the final order of punishment. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its opinion recommended for compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from service. Further, the punishment of compulsory retirement is not 12/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 disproportionate to the alleged charge, as the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was passed after obtaining opinion from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
7. Pursuant to the Auditing of accounts conducted by the Audit Party during the year 1996 in Padatturpet Town Panchayat, 11 charges have been framed against the petitioner by the second respondent on 7.1.1997. The petitioner submitted explanation to all the 11 charges on 16.10.1997. Followed by charge memo, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to remit the amount of Rs.10,728/-. The petitioner refused to remit the said amount stating that the said amount was duly paid as per Register to the labourers who carried out the work under J.V.V.T. The enquiry officer in his report, dated 10.11.1998 held that out of 11 charges, nine charges as proved against the petitioner. Admittedly, after production of relevant files and records by the petitioner before the Audit department on 24.9.1999, Audit objections were dropped without taking note of the fact. On 30.3.2007, the second respondent passed an order in Roc.No.4413/2007-1/A1 placing the petitioner under suspension. Before suspension, the petitioner was served with five sets of charge memos on 7.1.1997, 18.8.2003, 15.3.2004, 19.4.2006 and 30.3.2007. According to the petitioner, the 1st set of charge ended in 13/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 compulsory retirement. The second set of charge is as to why the petitioner has not remitted the amount of Rs.10,728/- as directed by the second respondent. The petitioner had refused to remit the same stating that the said amount was duly paid as per Register, to the labourers who carried out the work under J.V.V.T. Third set of charge memo was dropped by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 18.11.2007. In fourth set of charge memo, dated 19.4.2006, enquiry was completed and report also submitted, but final order is pending wherein no monetary loss. Insofar as 5th set of charge memo, dated 30.3.2007, it was dropped by the second respondent by his proceedings, dated 6.2.2014.
8. The first and second set of charges arising out of the audit objection during auditing of accounts, being conducted in Padatturpet Town Panchayat during the year 1996 and the aforesaid audit objections were dropped by the Authority on 24.9.1999. While so, on 30.3.2007, the second respondent passed an order in Roc.No.4413/2007-1/A1 placing the petitioner under suspension and the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service. Based on the enquiry report submitted on 24.9.1999, the second respondent passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner in Roc.No.18773/2005/A5 on 27.6.2008, i.e. after a lapse of 9 long years, that 14/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 too when the petitioner was retired from service on superannuation. Out of the five sets of charges stated in the order of suspension, dated 30.3.2007 of the second respondent, only first set of charges (11 charges) alone cited in the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service, dated 27.6.2008. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the other charges.
9. The petitioner filed statutory appeal on 27.8.2008 before the first respondent. Till the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2009 in W.P.No.23685 of 2009, no action was taken in the appeal petition and only after the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2009, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within six weeks, opinion of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was sought for by the first respondent. Tamilnadu Public Service Commission in its opinion has observed as follows:
''1. 07.01.1997-y; Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghiz tH';fg;
gl;oUg;gpDk;. Mz;Lfs; fHpj;J 31.03.2007-y;
gpiHahsh; gzp Xa;t[ bgWk; epiy mile;j
gpd;dh; 27.06.2008-y; gzp mwt[ vd;w
jz;lid tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
2. tprhuiz mYtyhpd; tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy;
Fw;wr;rhl;L epUgzkhfpwjh my;yJ epUgzk;
Mftpy;iyah vd;w Kot[ fl;l nkw;bfhz;l
mog;gil fhuz';fs; Vw;g[ilajhf ,y;iy/
15/24
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.11317 of 2015
cjhuzkhf. Fw;wr;rhl;L 2?f;F Fw;w
mYtyh; TWk; rkhjhdk; Vw;g[ilajhf cs;sjhy;
,f;Fw;wr;rhl;oypUe;J ,tiu tpLtpf;fyhk; vd
Kot[ fz;l tpruhuiz mYtyh; Fw;wr;rhl;L
1?f;F Twpa[s;s rkhjhdk; Vw;gilajhf ,Ug;gpDk;
,th; gzpahw;wpa fhyfl;lj;jpy jpdf;Typ
gzpahsh;fs; epakd';fSf;F murpd; gpd;ndw;g[
bgw ve;jtpjkhd Kaw;rpa[k; bra;atpy;iy
vd;gjhy; epUgzkhfpwJ vd Kot[ fl;LtJ
epahakhdjhd ,y;iy/
.........
bghJthfnt jzpf;if jil Fwpg;g[fspd;
mog;gilapy; Fw;wr;rhl;L Vw;gLj;jg;gLtJk;.
xG';F eltof;if bray;ghLfspd; Kotpy;
jzpf;if jil Fwpg;g[fSf;F bjhlh;gi
[ la
Tl;lkh;tpy; tpsf;fk; mspf;fg;gl;L jil Fwpg;g[fs;
kPst[k; jpUk;gg; bgWtJk; mjd; mog;gilapy;
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; tYtpHg;gJk; muR eph;thfj;jpy;
,ay;ghd eilKiw bray;ghLfns/
Mdhy; ,e;epfH;tpy; Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l 11 Fw;wr;
bray;fSf;F mog;gilahd jzpf;if jil
Fwpg;g[fs; chpa Kiwapy; tpyf;fpf; bfhs;sg;gl;l
epiyapYk; jz;lid mjpfhhp mj;jF
epiyikia ca;j;Jah;j;j epiyapYk; kpf
fLikahd jz;lid tH';fp Mizapl;Ls;sJ
,ay;ghd eph;thf eilKiw vd Vw;gjw;fpy;iy/
///////////
gpiHahsh; U:/10.728/-I fl;l kWj;j epiyapy; ''for disobedience and insubordination he may be placed 16/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 under suspension with immediate effect and charges may be framed'' vd mtruf;nfhy MizapLtJk;
rhpahd eph;thfr; bray; md;W/
/////////////
''Fw;wr;rhl;L 10-f;F bjhlh;gi
[ la jzpf;if jil
njitahd tpsf;fkhd gjpy; bfhLj;j gpwF
24.9.1999-y; jzpf;ifahsuhy; ePf;fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ/'' ............
06.08.2003-y; gpiHahsh; rkh;g;gpj;j
nky;tpsf;fj;jpw;F cldo eltof;if vLf;fhky;.
20.06.2008-y; eltof;if bjhlug;gl;L 'gzp mwt['
vDk; jz;lid tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,ilg;gl;l 5
Mz;Lfspy; nfhg;gpy; vt;tpj nky;eltof;if
vLf;fg;gl;ljpw;F Mjhuk; fhzg;gltpy;iy/
/////////////
tprhuiz mwpf;ifa[k; bjspthd fhuz';fs;
,d;wp epUgpf;fg;gl;ljhf fUjyhk;/////
Fw;w epfH;tpypUe;J 11 Mz;Lfs; fHpj;J rhpahd
fhuzk; gjpag;glhky;. jd; Mizf;F fPH;g;goahd
mYtyh; gHpth';fg;gLk; njhuizapy; gzp mwt[
jz;lid tH';fg;gl;oUf;fyhk;''
10. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its observation has stated that even though audit objections were dropped by the authority concerned by adopting due process of procedure and no financial loss sustained by the Panchayat, after a lapse of 11 years without recording proper reason, 17/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 the punishment of dismissal from service is a revengeful act of the Disciplinary Authority for disobedience and insubordination of the petitioner. This Court is unable to understand as to why Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission while recording its opinion against the Disciplinary Authority, second respondent herein, made such perverse recommendations moulding the punishment of dismissal from service into Compulsory retirement.
11. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent clearly shows that the first respondent referring the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, without scrutinising the charges made against the petitioner, evidence led before the enquiry officer and his report independently, and the relevant files and records, without recording any reason, passed the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement. In Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 713, the Honourable Supreme Court had pointed out that even when an Appellate Authority agrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority in a departmental enquiry, it should give reasons so as to enable the Writ Court to ascertain there was an application of mind as required by the relevant rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had while doing so observed as follows:18/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 “33. An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order but the authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind on his part as regard the compliance of the requirements of law while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules.”
12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority, the first respondent herein without examining any materials and without recording any reason, concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, simply referring the observations made by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, without proper application of mind on his part, passed the impugned order.
13. Further, there is no explanation from the respondents for the delay in serving charge memo to the petitioner on 7.1.1997 by the second respondent by framing 11 charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules based on the audit objections for the allegations pertaining to the period 1994-1995. Further, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service was passed after more than 11 years.
When the statutory Appeal petition was filed on 27.8.2008, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order after a lapse of nearly five years i.e. 27.6.2013. The second respondent did not have any justifiable reason for the 19/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 delay of 11 years for concluding the enquiry proceedings. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned and such inordinate delay vitiate the entire enquiry.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [2008 (3) CTC 781] held as under:
''9. We have extracted the charges against the appellant. These charges did not require any detailed investigation. In view of the unexplained delay of nine years the Trial Court was justified in holding that the entire enquiry was vitiated and in declaring that the order of punishment to be null and void. The Appellate Court did not have any justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter as the Appeal involved a substantial question of law, i.e. whether issue of charge sheet after nine years when there are no special circumstance to explain the delay vitiated the enquiry. As the matter is old and as we have already found that the delay vitiated the enquiry, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter. We propose to dispose of the Appeal on merits.'' 20/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015
15. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan case (supra), this Court in C. VIJAYAKUMAR VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [(2017)1 MLJ 327] held as under:
''13. Considering the factual aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, had the charge-memo been issued at an earlier point of time, by this time the punishment imposed on the petitioner would have come to an end. In view of the delay in issuing the charge- memo, the petitioner's chance for getting promotion has got further delayed. Therefore, for the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 621 [M.Elangovan Vs. Trichy District Central Co-
operative Bank Ltd., wherein it has been held by this Court, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board [MANU/SC/0483/2005 : 2005(4) CTC 403], as follows_ "16. Applying the said dictum in the present case, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has already suffered enough on account of the disciplinary proceedings and as pointed out and the mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the proposed punishment itself. For the mistakes committed by the department in inordinate delay in initiating proceedings and also during the conducting of the proceedings the petitioner shall not be made to suffer any further."
21/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 In P.V. Mahadevan VS. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board [MANU/SC/0483/2005 : 2005(4) CTC 403], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government Official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests 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 the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
The dictum laid down in the above cited decisions would be squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Even in the instant case also, the petitioner has suffered enough by the protracted disciplinary proceedings. Now, he cannot be made to suffer further, especially when there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge-memo. Hence, on this 22/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 sole ground of inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.''
16. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority without independently examining the charges, evidence deposed before the enquiry officer, the findings of the enquiry officer and the delay in serving charge memo to the petitioner, simply recording the observations made by Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, passed the impugned order and thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Further, there is inordinate delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings and there is no acceptable explanation for the delay of more than 11 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, in the light of the decision cited supra, the impugned order passed by the first respondent suffers from legal infirmities and the same is liable to be quashed.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions cited supra, the impugned punishment order in G.O.Ms.No.334 passed by the first respondent, dated 27.06.2013 confirming the order passed by the second respondent, dated 27.6.2008 and the consequential order of the first respondent, dated 11.4.2014 imposing penalty of reduction of 1/3 of pension 23/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.11317 of 2015 and D.C.R.G. are quashed and the writ petitioner is entitled for all the monetary benefits as per the rules with simple interest at the rate of 7.95% p.a. from the date of the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 27.6.2008.
The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
11.03.2020
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vaan
To
1 The Secretary to Government,
Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and
Water Supplies Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2 The Commissioner of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam Chennai-108.
24/24
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.11317 of 2015
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.11317 of 2015
Dated: 11.03.2020
25/24
http://www.judis.nic.in