Madras High Court
R.Gopal vs The Secretary To Government on 30 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30 / 07 / 2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOS.17731, 17732, 17733, 17768 17769 AND 17829 OF 2008 W.P.NO.17731 / 2008 R.Gopal ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D) No.15, P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release the terminal benefits, GPF, special PF, encashment of Earned Leave etc. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General I Assisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate W.P.NO.17732 / 2008 S.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of 1st respondent relating to the impugned order issued in G.O.(3D) No.17, P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General I Assisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate W.P.NO.17733 / 2008 G.Devadhas ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government Handloom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department For Saint George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D) No.16, P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General I Assisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate W.P.NO.17768 / 2008 R.Gopal ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 4.Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai 600 017. 5.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-3 P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents 1-4: Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General I Assisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate For Respondent 5 : Mr.R.Narayanan W.P.NO.17769 / 2008 G.Devadhas ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government Handlooom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 4.Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai 600 017. 5.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-4 P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents 1-4: Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General I Assisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate For Respondent 5 : Mr.R.Narayanan W.P.NO.17829 / 2008 S.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 4.Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai 600 017. 5.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-5 P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents 1-4: Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General I Assisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate For Respondent 5 : Mr.R.Narayanan COMMON ORDER
These six writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice vide order dated 03.07.2012.
2.The three writ petitioners namely R.Gopal, G.Devadhas and S.Vijayalakshmi have filed two writ petitions each, one challenging the order of suspension and the other challenging the charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The following table will show the name of the petitioners involved and the challenge made:
S.No. Case No. Name of the Petitioner Impugned order 1 W.P.No.17731 / 2008 R.Gopal Suspension - G.O.(3D) No.15, P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 2 W.P.No.17768 / 2008 R.Gopal Charge memo dated 27.06.2008 3 W.P.No.17732 / 2008 S.Vijayalakshmi Suspension - G.O.(3D) No.17, P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 4 W.P.No.17829 / 2008 S.Vijayalakshmi Charge memo dated 27.06.2008 5 W.P.No.17733 / 2008 G.Devadhas Suspension - G.O.(3D) No.16, P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 6 W.P.No.17769 / 2008 G.Devadhas Charge memo dated 27.06.2008
3.The petitioner R.Gopal at the relevant time was working as Under Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department. The petitioner S.Vijayalakshmi was working as Assistant Section Officer in Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. Likewise, the petitioner G.Devadhas was working as Under Secretary to Government, Handloom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department.
4.These writ petitions were admitted on different dates. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petitions, R.Gopal, petitioner in W.P.Nos.17731 and 17768 of 2008 reached the age of superannuation and by a specific order of the Government, he was not allowed to retire from service, as the proceedings are still pending. Similarly, G.Devadhas, petitioner in W.P.Nos.17733 and 17769 of 2008 also reached the age of superannuation and he was also not allowed to retire from service.
5.The two petitioners namely G.Devadhas and S.Vijayalakshmi earlier filed two writ petitions being W.P.Nos.14361 and 14377 of 2009 seeking for a direction to produce all the documents which are listed in Annexure-III to the charge memo. That writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 27.07.2009 by directing the respondents to furnish the required documents to the petitioners therein in terms of their representation made on different dates.
6.It is seen from the records that the petitioners were suspended from service by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. The suspension was made under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for the gross irregularities and malpractices committed in the allotment of residential / public purpose plots to the members at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Kancheepuram District. It was also stated that an enquiry into the grave charges is pending and charges have also been framed by letter dated 27.06.2008. Similarly, charges have also been framed against each one of the petitioners. The charges included that the petitioners have entered into criminal conspiracy with the other Office Bearers of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Limited and private individuals and have committed the grave malpractices in the allotment of residential / public purpose plots under the Okkiam Thoraipakkam Scheme, in violation of the by-laws of the Society and the condition stipulated by the Government. They have shown favouritism by allotting the public purposes plots to the family members / relatives / friends of the Office Bearers of the Society and thereby gained unlawful pecuniary advantages constituting offences punishable under Section 120(B) IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and have acted in the manner unbecoming of the member of the service by violating rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.
7.Annexure-II of the charge memo listed out the specific charges. Annexure-III contains the list of documents, on which reliance was placed upon and there were as many as 164 documents. Annexure-IV contains the list of witnesses numbering as many as 154. Since the petitioners are facing the same set of allegations, though belong to different Department, power under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was invoked, so that the disciplinary action against the Government servants can be taken in a common proceeding and the Government was declared as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of common proceeding and they will be competent to impose penalty under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The procedure in conducting enquiry will be as specified under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
8.Subsequently, the Government passed an order in G.O.(D) No.128, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2008, for conducting common proceeding. The petitioners sent representation for revoking the suspension and thereafter filed detailed explanation in respect of the charge memo given to them. Even before the enquiry could be held, they sent a letter stating that the Secretary to the Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has no competency and jurisdiction to order for enquiry under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
9.Reliance was placed upon a communication dated 26.07.2000 sent by the Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, wherein it was informed that the Secretary to the Government of an Administrative Department, while taking a provisional conclusion in a disciplinary case in the note file, should also approve the related drafts before referring the matter to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Therefore, it was contended that when more than one Government servants are jointly involved or whose case are interconnected, the competent authority for ordering enquiry shall be the immediate higher authority in the Department. Therefore, it was contended that R.Gopal, being the Under Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department and being the highest authority, any initiation of proceedings will have to be done only by the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department and not Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. It is in that view of the matter, these writ petitions came to be filed.
10.Additionally it was contended that the suspension ought not to have been made as there was no investigation pending at the time of suspension. An attempt was also made to contend that the charges are without basis and similarly placed persons were let out. Thereby there is a case of discrimination on the part of the Government in taking action against the petitioners alone. In so far as the defence taken on the merits of the charges as well as the validity of the charge memo is concerned and in so far as the petitioners are given individual replies to the charge memo on 01.03.2011 by R.Gopal, 17.09.2011 by G.Devadhas and 27.09.2011 by S.Vijayalakshmi, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the defence taken by the petitioners and it is for them to defend themselves in a proper enquiry, in which they will be given ample opportunity to put forth their defence.
11.The other ground raised namely that the charge memo was not framed by a competent authority is concerned, reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRICHY RANGE, TRICHY AND OTHERS VS. S.SEETHALAKSHMI AND OTHERS in W.P.Nos.24506 to 24512 of 2003 (decided on 05.04.2005) wherein Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, came to be interpreted. It was stated in the said case the requirement of law provided under Rule 9-A does not get diluted and no other rule can be relied upon for diluting the rule. In that case, it was held that all the persons involved were police personnel and therefore, Secretary to Government, Home Department is the only authority who could have order joint proceeding under Rule 9-A and not by any inferior.
12.Secondly, reference was made to another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER VS. R.RANGANATHAN AND OTHERS in W.A.Nos.1478 of 2008 and 266 of 2009 (decided on 05.03.2010) wherein proceedings were quashed by the Division Bench. Though in the judgment of the Division Bench in T.Ranganathan's case, the issue is relating to interpretation of Rule 9-A, the Division Bench did not deal with the aspect and in para 24 it had gone into the said issue as the matter was disposed of on the question of delay.
13.Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General-I appearing for the State stated that it is a misnomer call for the Secretary to Labour and Employment Department, who is the authority to take action. On the other hand, under the Tamil Nadu General service belonging to Class 12, the power of appointment of Under Secretaries should be made by a panel approved by the Government and it shall be made by the Secretary to Government in-charge of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. He has also produced the order to show that R.Gopal, petitioner in W.P.Nos. 17731 and 17768 of 2008 was appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 31.05.2006 and posted to work in the Labour and Employment Department. Therefore, it is misnomer to state that under Rule 9-A, the wrong Authority has issued the Government Order constituting a common proceeding. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MADRAS AND ANOTHER VS. F.X.FERNANDO [1994 (2) SCC 746] wherein it has been held that if the delay in conducting investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was not prompt, that could not be blamed on the departmental enquiry. It was also held that even a subordinate to the Government initiating a charge memo was held to be valid, even though he did not have any power to impose the final penalty.
14.Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General-I appearing for the State also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER VS. THAVASIAPPAN [1996 (2) SCC 145] for contending that it is not necessary that charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the proposed penalty.
15.The second contention that the respondents have proceeded selectively against the petitioners also does not stand to reason, as ultimately such an issue shall be gone into only after the enquiries completed and any punishment imposed and that too with reliable materials. Therefore, both the contentions raised by Mr.S.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has to fail. It must be noted that for the allegation that the suspension was not properly worded, the Supreme Court in the following two judgments has held as follows:
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT VS. L.SRINIVASAN [1996(3)SCC157] "3........ The respondent while working as Assistant Section Officer, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department had been placed under suspension. Departmental inquiry is in process. We are informed that charge-sheet was laid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlement and fabrication of false records etc. and that the offences and the trial of the case is pending. The Tribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry and quashed the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the nature of the charges, it would take a long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which should be done in secrecy. It is not necessary to go into the merits and record any finding on the charge levelled against the charged officer since any finding recorded by this Court would gravely prejudice the case of the parties at the enquiry and also at the trial. Therefore, we desist from expressing any opinion on merit or recording any of the contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of the Administrative Tribunal appears to have no knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service law and exercised power as if he is an appellate forum dehors the limitation of judicial review. This is one such instance where a member had exceeded his power of judicial review in quashing the suspension order and charges even at the threshold. We are coming across such orders frequently putting heavy pressure on this Court to examine each case in detail. It is high time that it is remedied."
D.G. AND I.G. OF POLICE VS. K.RATNAGIRI [1990(3)SCC60]
7....... The Rule 13(1) empowers the authority to keep the respondent under suspension pending investigation or enquiry into the criminal charges where such suspension is necessary in the public interest. When the first information report is issued, the investigation commences and indeed it has commenced when the respondent was kept under suspension. The order of suspension cannot, therefore, be said to be beyond the scope of Rule 13(1) merely because it has used the word prosecution instead of investigation into the charges against the respondent. A wrong wording in the order does not take away the power if it is otherwise available. The Tribunal seems to have ignored this well accepted principle."
(Emphasis added)
16.Similarly in respect of procedure for invalidating the charge memo came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the following judgments.
(i) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BRAHM DATT SHARMA [1987 (2) SCC 179] "9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice."
(ii) SPECIAL DIRECTOR VS. MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE [2004 (3) SCC 440] "5.This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted."
(iii) UNION OF INDIA VS. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA [2006 (12) SCC 28] "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
(iv) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES VS. SACHINDRA NATH PANDEY [1995 (3) SCC 134] "7. On a perusal of charges, we find that the charges are very serious. We are, therefore, not inclined to close the matter only on the ground that about 16 years have elapsed since the date of commencement of disciplinary proceedings, more particularly when the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for this delay..............."
(v) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT VS. L. SRINIVASAN [1996 (3) SCC 157] "3.......We are informed that charge-sheet was laid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlement and fabrication of false records etc. and that the offences and the trial of the case is pending. The Tribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry and quashed the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the nature of the charges, it would take a long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which should be done in secrecy. It is not necessary to go into the merits and record any finding on the charge levelled against the charged officer since any finding recorded by this Court would gravely prejudice the case of the parties at the enquiry and also at the trial. Therefore, we desist from expressing any opinion on merit or recording any of the contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of the Administrative Tribunal appears to have no knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service law and exercised power as if he is an appellate forum dehors the limitation of judicial review. This is one such instance where a member had exceeded his power of judicial review in quashing the suspension order and charges even at the threshold. We are coming across such orders frequently putting heavy pressure on this Court to examine each case in detail. It is high time that it is remedied."
(vi) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V. APPALA SWAMY [2007 (14) SCC 49] "12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are:
(1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee;
(2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee.
Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer.
13. This aspect of the matter is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Secy. to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India; Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India. That case was decided on its peculiar facts. In that case, even the basic material on which departmental proceedings could be initiated was absent. The departmental proceedings were initiated after 6 years and continued for a period of 7 years. In that fact situation, it was held that the appellant therein was prejudiced.
15. Bijlani, therefore, is not an authority and, in fact, as would appear from the decision in P.D. Agrawal for the proposition that only on the ground of delay the entire proceedings can be quashed without considering the other relevant factors therefor."
17.In view of the above, this Court do not find any case made out to interfere with the impugned orders of suspension and charge memo and hence, all these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
30 / 07 / 2012 Index : Yes Internet : Yes TK To
1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary to Government Handloom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department For Saint George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
6.Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai 600 017.
7.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai 600 009.
K.CHANDRU, J.
TK PRE-DELIVERY COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P.NOS.17731, 17732, 17733, 17768 17769 AND 17829 OF 2008 30 / 07 / 2012