Madras High Court
C.Rajagopal vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.No.16227 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.16227 of 2019
C.Rajagopal ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Managing Director/Personal Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent issued final
order in Pro.No.DC4/11300/1993-4 dated 20.01.2006 of the 2nd
respondent and consequential in proceeding No.DC4/25722/2006 dated
25.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner as Assistant
Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of
his immediate junior and further promotions with all monetary benefits
within a reasonable time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader for R1
: Mr.D.Veerasekaran
Standing Counsel for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.16227 of 2019
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent issued final order in Pro.No.DC4/11300/1993-4 dated 20.01.2006 of the 2nd respondent and consequential in proceeding No. DC4/25722/2006 dated 25.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior and further promotions with all monetary benefits within a reasonable time frame.
2. In respect of a set of charges, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated and order of punishment was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board against the petitioner by order dated 20.01.2006 where the punishment awarded against the petitioner is stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years besides ordering to recover a sum of Rs.3,17,400/-.
3. In respect of these proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Housing Board are heard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019
4. Against the very same petitioner for the similar set of charges already proceedings were initiated which ended in the punishment similar to that of the present one, which is the subject matter in W.P.No.16224 of 2019 where this Court passed the following order:
“4. There were six charges framed against the petitioner. However, the Enquiry Officer states that the first five charges either have not been proved or in respect of those charges, the petitioner is not responsible. However, the Enquiry Officer erroneously seems to have given a finding in respect of the 6th charge which is nothing but, in view of the five charges, the petitioner has violated Clause 20 of the Code of Conduct of the Staff of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, however that charge according to the Enquiry Officer was proved.
5. It is very ridiculous to note that the first five charges since are not related to the petitioner, the question of 6th charge does not arise. Therefore, on what basis the Enquiry Officer given such a finding is not known.
6. Nevertheless without applying the mind the respondents who is the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2012 accepting the Enquiry Officer's report only in respect of the 6th https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 charge and imposed the said punishment.
7. It is the further development to be noted that, it is not only against the petitioner but also for other 10 people totally 11 people this kind of disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Insofar as the petitioner and other person i.e. Executive Engineer one K.G.Gopalakrishnan the proceedings were dropped according to the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.70 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 31.10.2020 which reads thus:
“5.,e;neh;tpy;. ,J bjhlh;ghf. jdpaUld; nrh;e;J 11 egh;fSf;F xG';F eltof;iffs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L. fPH;f;fhQqk; jz;lidfs; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sd/ t/ v z ; / b g a h ; k w ; W k ; gj t p t H ' ; f g ; g l ; l jz ; l i d jp U k j p – jp U t h s h ; f s ;
1/ G.j';fuh$;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F jz;lidahf ,tUila khjhe;jpu nkw;ghh;it bghwpahsh; Xa;t{jpaj;jpypUe;J U:/5000- K:d;whz;LfSf;F gpoj;jk; bra;a muRf;F ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gl;lJ/ 2/ P.rptuhkd;. iftplg;gl;lJ/ braw;bghwpahsh;
3/ P.rptFUehjd;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F jz;lidahf ,tUila khjhe;jpu cjtpg;bghwpahsh; (Xa;t[) Xa;t{jpaj;jpypUe;J U:/3000- K:d;whz;LfSf;F gpoj;jk;/ 4/ D.kndhfud;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F jz;lidahf ,tUila khjhe;jpu ,sepiyg; bghwpahsh; Xa;t{jpaj;jpypUe;J U:/1000- Xuhz;L gpoj;jk;/ 5/ K.R.ehuhazd; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F jz;lidahf ,tUila khjhe;jpu braw;bghwpahsh; Xa;t{jpaj;jpypUe;J U:/1000- Xuhz;L gpoj;jk;/ 6/ V.V.ghyfpUc&;zd;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F jz;lidahf ,tUila khjhe;jpu braw;bghwpahsh; (Xa;t[) Xa;t{jpaj;jpypUe;J U:/1000- Xuhz;L gpoj;jk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 t/ v z ; / b g a h ; k w ; W k ; gj t p t H ' ; f g ; g l ; l jz ; l i d jp U k j p – jp U t h s h ; f s ;
7/ V.R.rk;gj; iftplg;gl;lJ/
,sepiyg; bghwpahsh;
8/ K.G.nfhghyfpUc&;zd; iftplg;gl;lJ/
braw;bghwpahsh;
9/ C.,uh$nfhghy;. iftplg;gl;lJ/
cjtpg; bghwpahsh;
10/ P.ncwkyjh. fhyKiw Cjpa cah;t[ jpuz;l gadpd;wp
,sepiyg; bghwpahsh; ,uz;L Mz;Lf;F epWj;jk; bra;jy;
11/ K.B.eluh$d;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F jz;lidahf ,tUila khjhe;jpu
cjtpg; bghwpahsh; Xa;t{jpaj;jpypUe;J U:/2000-
K:d;whz;LfSf;F gpoj;jk;/
12/ V.bry;tuh$; iftplg;gl;lJ/
nkw;ghh;it bghwpahsh;
(Xa;t[)
8. In the aforestated list of delinquents, the name of the petitioner is at Sl.No.9 where the charges were dropped even according to the Government.
9. When that being so, the punishment awarded against the petitioner through the impugned order does not stand.
10. Moreover, on the ground of delay even on merits, the initiation of the proceedings has to be interfered with by this Court since the alleged occurrence was of the year 1983, whereas admittedly the proceedings were initiated only in 2003 i.e. after 20 years which is an inordinate delay and in such kind of inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 more than several occasions have come down heavily and relief were given to the employees / staff of the organisation concerned. Therefore, for that reason also the impugned order would not stand. Hence, for all these reasons, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders.
That the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner no doubt would be entitled to get the consequential service benefits. To that extent, this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5. Insofar as the point of delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in W.P.No.34197 of 2016 in the matter of B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Chennai and others. The learned Judge in the said order having considered a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowed the said writ petition which reads thus:
“12. In the above decisions, the Courts have interfered with the disciplinary action on the ground of delay alone. There cannot be a better case than the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 present one for this Court-s to interfere and to hold that non~completion of the departmental proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge memoranda cannot be countenanced in law or on facts. In such circumstances, the charge memoranda are liable to be quashed as the same have been kept pending for an extraordinary and agonising length of time for no valid reasons. Moreover, the petitioner is 86 years old and to subject him to enquiry proceedings at this age for no fault of his would only result in grave miscarriage of justice.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned charge memoranda in Na.Ka.No.2937/97Vu dated 09.10.1997 and Na.Ka.No.4579/97E dated 23.06.1998 and the proceedings of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kancheepuram Region, Kancheepuram in Rc.No.5641/2016/EM dated 06.04.2022 are hereby quashed as being illegal and void.
14. The respondents are consequently directed to pass appropriate order, granting all retirement and pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner along with admissible arrears.”
6. I am in respectful agreement with the said view taken by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 learned Judge on the point of delayed initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore in this case also, the impugned order for the aforestated reasons, besides the reason for delay, would not be sustained, hence this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:
That the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel the petitioner would be entitled to get all service and monetary benefits for which he is entitled to and the same if at all has not been paid to the petitioner shall be calculated and paid to him or be extended to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
13.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Sgl To
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Housing & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl W.P.No.16227 of 2019 13.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 R. SURESH KUMAR,J.
This writ petition is listed today under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, where he points out that, the year of occurrence of the alleged violation was in the year 1983. Therefore, following the decision of this Court dated 13.07.2022 in W.P.No.16224 of 2019, the extracted portion at Para 4 of the order, where in internal Para 10 of the order, Line 3 it should be mentioned as 1995 instead of 1983. Like wise, in Line 4 of the same para, it should be read as 7 years instead of 20 years.
2. That apart, the fact remains that, in this case the occurrence was 1983 and therefore there was a delay of 20 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the correction to be carried out are as follows, ● In Para 4 of the order, in the extracted portion in internal Para 4 Line 3, instead of 1983 it must be 1995.
● In Para 4 of the order, in the extracted portion in internal Para 4 Line 4, instead of 20 years, it must be 7 years.
4. Registry is directed to issue corrected copy of the order to the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 08.08.2022 KST 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/8 W.P.No.16227 of 2019 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
kst W.P.No.16227 of 2019 08.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/8