Madras High Court
M.Krishnasamy vs The Joint Director Of Agriculture on 14 July, 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.(MD)No.10339 of 2012
And
W.P.(MD)No.10341 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2012 and
1, 1 and 1 of 2013
M.Krishnasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10339 of 2012
K.Duraivel ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10340 of 2012
V.Raveendran ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10341 of 2012
Vs.
The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Theni Division, Theni,
Theni District. ... Respondent in all the W.Ps.
W.P.(MD)No.10339 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of
the respondent relating to his letter No.Aa.4/4851/2000-4 dated 30.05.2012
and quash the same.
W.P.(MD)No.10340 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of
the respondent relating to his letter No.Aa.4/4851/2000-2 dated 30.05.2012
and quash the same.
W.P.(MD)No.10341 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of
the respondent relating to his letter No.Aa.4/4851/2000-3 dated 30.05.2012
and quash the same.
!For petitioners : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For respondent : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,
Government Advocate
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in all these writ petitions were working as Assistant Agricultural Officers, Agricultural Extension Centre at Aundipatti, during the year 1999-2000. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Theni, by his Proceedings Aa.4/4851/2000-4 dated 30.05.2012, issued a charge memorandum against the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10339 of 2012 levelling as many as three charges. Similarly, as against the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10340 of 2012, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Theni, by his Proceedings Aa.4/4851/2000- 2 dated 30.05.2012, issued a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, levelling three charges, which are similar in nature. So also, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Theni, issued a Charge Memorandum against the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10341 of 2012, by his Proceedings Aa.4/4851/2000-3 dated 30.05.2012, levelling similar charges, three in number. Challenging these Charge Memos issued respectively, the petitioners are before this Court with these writ petitions.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
3.All these charges relate to the year 1999-2000. The crux of the charges are that one Sankaran who was working as Agricultural Development Officer during the relevant time, had encashed a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of disbursing the same to the beneficiaries. Though the amount was withdrawn from the Sub-Treasury on 16.02.2000, he did not disburse the same to the beneficiaries. As a result, there were lot of complaints. Thereafter, Mr.Sankaran paid back the amount to the Treasury on 05.04.2000 and thereafter the same was disbursed to the beneficiaries on 06.04.2000. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have connived with the said Sankaran.
4.In these writ petitions, a detailed counter has been filed narrating the above.
5.In these writ petitions, the focus is mainly on two grounds. The first ground is, there is an enormous delay of 12 years in issuing the charge memorandum and hence these petitioners are greatly prejudiced in their defence. The second ground is, the charges are so vague, which did not mention as to how the allegation that the petitioners connived with Mr.Sankaran, is substantiated.
6.In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that initially the fraud committed was not known, and in the year 2008, the Auditor submitted an Audit Report, wherein only the fraud came to light. Thereafter, in the year 2012, charges were framed. Thus there is no delay much less enormous delay in issuing charge memorandum, it is contended. In respect of the connivance, absolutely there is no allegation in the counter.
7.I have considered the above submissions.
8.So far as the allegation against the petitioners is concerned, a reading of the charge memorandum would go to show that the charges are vague and the entire allegation is only against Mr.Sankaran. Even according to the charge memorandum, the said Sankaran withdrew the amount from the Sub- Treasury under the guise of disbursing the same to the beneficiaries, but he did not do so. When it came to light, he paid back the amount to the Treasury. Thereafter, the amount was duly disbursed to the beneficiaries. Except this allegation, there is nothing found in the statement of allegations, in respect of the alleged role played by these petitioners. Therefore, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the charges against the petitioners are so vague and there is nothing on record to substantiate these charges.
9.Coming to the question of delay, in my considered opinion, the delay is enormous and it stands unexplained. After 12 years, if the petitioners are made to face the charges, it will be really difficult for them to procure those original witnesses and documents. One cannot expect them to retain the documents forever. Thus, making the petitioners to face charges at this length of time, will surely be prejudicial to their defence.
10.In view of the above two grounds, I am inclined to quash all the charges against the petitioners. Accordingly, all the charges against the petitioners are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
To The Joint Director of Agriculture, Theni Division, Theni, Theni District.