Madras High Court
V.Meenakshi vs The Director Of Social Welfare on 17 November, 2011
Author: D. Hariparanthaman
Bench: D. Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.11.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.14786 of 2011
V.Meenakshi .. Petitioner
vs
The Director of Social Welfare,
Chepauk,
Chennai-5. .. Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the respondent herein in Proc.No.20399/Admn. 5-3/2011, dated 31.5.2011 placing the petitioner under suspension and Proc.No.20399/Admn. 5-3/2011 dated 31.5.2011 by not allowing the petitioner to retire from service on reaching the date of superannuation i.e. 31.5.2011 afternoon and the charge memo issued to the petitioner in R.C.No.27034/Admn. 5-3/2009, dated 31.5.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to retire the petitioner from service with effect from 31.5.2011 and confer the retirement benefits with all attendant and consequential benefits with due regards to the petitioner seniority.
For Petitioner ... Mr.R.S.Anandan
For Respondent ... Mr.V.Subbiah
Special Govt. Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner was appointed as a Child Welfare Organiser (Balasevika) in the year 1971. In the year 1998, she was promoted as Rural Welfare Officer. For promotion to the post of Rural Welfare Officer, one should possess SSLC as the minimum educational qualification. The petitioner produced the required certificate. Based on the same, she was promoted as Rural Welfare Officer in the year 1998. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.5.2011 and she has to retire on the same day. On the eve of her retirement, she was placed under suspension by the respondent by the impugned order dated 31.5.2011 issued under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The respondent also issued an order dated 31.5.2011 under Fundamental Rules 56 (1) (c) not permitting the petitioner to retire from service on her reaching the age of superannuation i.e on 31.5.2011. The petitioner was also issued with a Charge Memo in RC.No.27034 /Admn./5-3/2009 dated 31.5.2011 on the same day under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the respondent.
2.The allegations made in the charge memo are that the petitioner produced a bogus SSLC certificate to get promotion to the post of Rural Welfare Officer and has thus violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1988. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders dated 31.5.2011.
3.The respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned orders were issued based on the report in letter No.31783/V2/1999, dated 9.5.1999 which was issued by the Director of Government Examinations stating that the certificate which was produced by the petitioner is a bogus one. Therefore, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by passing the impugned orders.
4.I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
5.The petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated 31.5.2001 alleging that she produced bogus SSLC certificate to get promotion to the post of Rural Welfare Officer in the year 1998. The Charge Memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Annexure 3 of the Charge Memo provides two documents to establish the charges on the petitioner. One is the report of the Director of Government Examinations in letter No.031783/V2/1999, dated 9.5.1999 and the other one is the SSLC certificate produced by the petitioner in Register No.478751/TMR Code No.A 059241 dated 21.12.1995. The Charge Memo was issued based on the aforesaid letter dated 9.5.1999 issued by the Director of Government Examinations. The letter of the Director of Government Examinations is dated 9.5.1999. The petitioner has to retire on 31.5.2011. The respondent waited for 12 long years without any reason to take action. The petitioner has questioned the action of the respondent stating that the belated action taken by the respondent after twelve years is illegal.
6.The respondent has stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the report of the Director of Government Examinations was received by the office of the respondent only on 31.5.2011.
7.I am not in agreement with such averments made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. It is made only to get over twelve years of delay. Even assuming that the letter dated 9.5.1999 of the Director of Government Examinations was received by the office of the respondent on 31.5.2011, the respondent alone has to be blamed. According to the respondent, the mark sheet produced by the petitioner was referred to the Director of Government Examinations to verify the genuiness of the certificate in the year 1998 itself. The respondent should have pursued the matter and ought to have obtained a response from the Director of Government Examinations. But, the respondent, who slept over for twelve years, could not say simply that they received the report on the last day of petitioner's retirement.
8.The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court deprecated the practice of the department in placing the employees under suspension and not allowing to retire on the eve of their retirement.
9.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.BOMMUSAMY V. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (2007 (4) MLJ 984) and paragraph 13 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"Further, there was inordinate delay in passing the order of punishment. Though the enquiry was initiated as early as on 10.8.1987, the passing of the order of punishment was kept pending for about five years and finally the punishment was imposed on 21.1.1993. There is no explanation for such an inordinate delay in passing the final order. Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee at the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Further, when the petitioner had pleaded that there was official prejudice and enmity between him and the third respondent in the matter of use and maintenance of the official vehicle, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case in proper perspective while dismissing the Original Applications. The Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when here was hardly fifteen days left for his retirement. More over, when his date of retirement is on 11.3.1987 and the order of suspension was passed on 25.3.1987 by invoking G.O. No.173. Therefore, when once the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 11.3.1987, the placing the petitioner under suspension after his date of superannuation is without authority and that when the relationship of master-servant ceased to exist, no Disciplinary Proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. On his ground also, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside".
10.Likewise, in a similar case, a learned Single judge of this Court has also deprecated the practice of initiating disciplinary action at the fag end of the retirement of the employee. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in J.MEERABAI V. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER in W.P.(MD)No.7106 of 2008. Paragraph 6 of the above said judgment is extracted hereunder.
"The stand taken by the petitioner that at the time when she got promoted, there was an opportunity for them to verify such certificate in the year 1994 and there is no reason for the respondents to wait for another 13 years and to suspend her first on the day of retirement and to conduct an enquiry without affording reasonable opportunity, is well found. The letter dated 26.02.2007 sent by the Director of Government Examinations, has found only in the order of the first respondent as an office note, which does not find reflect in the enquiry report. Further, there was no evidence let in the enquiry to prove that the statement obtained from the Directory was genuine and there was no opportunity for the petitioner to record her statement in the enquiry".
11.Normally, this Court would not interfere with the disciplinary action initiated by the department. But in an extraordinary case, like the case on hand, where the petitioner was proceeded with an action on the last day of her service, based on the report in letter No.031783/V2/1999, dated 9.5.1999, which was issued twelve years back, this Court has no option, but to interfere. The reason given by the respondent for taking such action on the last day that the report dated 9.5.1999 was received by the office of the respondent only on 31.5.2011 is not acceptable. As stated above, the respondent ought to have pursued with the Director of Government Examinations on his request made in 1998 to verify the genuiness of the certificate. For the above said reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly those orders are quashed.
12.The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. The respondent is hereby directed to send necessary proposals pertaining to the petitioner for pension and other terminal benefits to the concerned authorities within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To The Director of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai 5 cla