Madras High Court
R.Rajendran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 June, 2014
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.06.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD) No.16792 of 2013 R.Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by in The Secretary to Government (CT & CRD) Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 2.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 128, Santhone High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 28. ... Respondents Prayer Petitions filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings No.21703/B1/2004-2 dated 26.05.2004 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondent to give promotion to the petitioner as Sub-Registrar II, on date which his juniors were promoted with all benefits. !For Petitioner : Mr.Jana B.Janath Ahmed For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan G.A., :ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved against the charge memo dated 26.05.2004. Consequently, he is seeking for a direction to give promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar - II.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
He was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1983 and he is presently working as Assistant in the District Registrar Office, Trichy. While he was working as Assistant at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chettikulam, Ariyalur District, a complaint was given against him by one Kumar alleging that he has demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as bribe for issuing two encumbrance certificates. Consequent upon such complaint, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.12 of 1999 for the offence alleged to have been committed on 12.05.1999 under Section 7 & (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 13.05.1999 to 12.12.1999. After a period of nearly 5 years, a charge memo was issued on 26.05.2004 in respect of the very same allegation. After issuance of such charge memo, the respondents did not proceed with the enquiry and kept quite for more than 8 years. Only on 17.12.2012 an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. Even after appointing such enquiry officer, the enquiry was not conducted and no witnesses were examined and no further progress had taken place. Now, the present writ petition is filed before this Court challenging the charge memo mainly on the ground of delay and latches.
3. Apart from that even on merits, it is contended by the petitioner that the said criminal case initiated against the petitioner ended in acquittal by giving a finding that the prosecution has not proved beyond doubt about the alleged demand of bribe. The petitioner in support of said submission relied on the decision of the criminal court made Spl. Case No.2 of 2002, dated 01.08.2012.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent, wherein, it is stated that after issuing the charge memo on 26.05.2004, the petitioner appeared before the respondents in person on 24.08.2004 and requested to furnish certain documents. Though those documents were made ready, the petitioner never came forward to get those documents. The enquiry officer was appointed on 17.12.2012 and he sent notice to the petitioner on 04.01.2013 and thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned to several occasions, since the summons were not served on the witnesses.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though charge memo was issued as early as on 26.05.2004 in respect of the alleged delinquency said to have taken place in the year 1999, the respondents have not proceeded with the departmental proceedings for more than eight years and only on 17.12.2012, the enquiry officer was appointed. That itself would show that they are not interested in proceeding against the writ petitioner. He further submitted that the criminal court has also found against the prosecution in respect of the alleged demand of bribe. In support of his submission with regard to the delay and latches aspect is concerned, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2012(4) MLJ 576 (K.Deivendran vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District), which has been followed by another learned single Judge of this Court in a recent decision made in W.P(MD)No.14149 of 2013 dated 05.06.2014 (T.Ravindran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu).
6. Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the enquiry officer has already been appointed and enquiry will go on without further delay.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
8. In this case, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 26.05.2004. A perusal of the charge memo would show that the same was issued in respect of an alleged delinquency said to have taken place on 12.05.1999. Why the charge memo came to be issued after five years has not been explained by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Moreover, after issuing the charge memo, the enquiry proceeding has not been continued without any progress for nearly 8 years. The enquiry officer himself was appointed only on 17.12.2012. There is no explanation as to why the appointment of the enquiry officer itself came to be made after a period of eight years. If the petitioner has not received the documents which he has sought for, that will not prevent the respondent from appointing the enquiry officer. Therefore, the same cannot be a reason for appointing the enquiry officer after a period of eight years. It is not the case of the respondent that the delay was due to any order preventing the department from proceeding with the enquiry. Equally, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has caused delay. Therefore, in my considered view, the delay of nearly 5 years in issuing the charge memo and eight years in appointing the enquiry officer undoubtedly goes to the root of the matter and causes great prejudice to the petitioner. This Court has already considered this aspect of delay and latches in respect of the departmental proceeding and found at paragraph 18 of the order made in 2012(4) MLJ 576 (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
" 18. From the reading of the above said letter issued by the Government it is seen that the disciplinary action, arising out of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption investigation, has to be completed and report has to be sent within one year. In this case as it the investigation itself was commenced after the period of one year, the same is beyond the time limit prescribed by the very same Government in its letter dated 22.12.1987. On this ground also the impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed."
9. The said decision of this Court was subsequently, followed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.14149 of 2012, dated 05.06.2014, wherein, the learned Judge held at paragraph 13 as follows:
"13. The above Judgements are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As held earlier, there is no explanation, for the delay in issuing the charge memo. Further, as per Letter (Ms)No.1118/Per-N/87 dated 22.12.1987, the charges must have been framed within 4 months, the enquiry must have been conducted within 6 months and an order must be passed within 140 days. In this case, the charge memo has been issued after 7 years. The delay has certainly vitiated the proceeding. Further, it is evident from the counter that two of the officers have also been permitted to retire. Therefore, applying the ratio in the above judgements, the charge memo dated 17.02.2005 is quashed."
10. Considering the above aspects of delay, I find that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Even on merits, it is seen that the criminal case filed against the petitioner ended in acquittal by holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged demand of bribe by the petitioner. Therefore, by considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents cannot be permitted to proceed against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned charge memo is set aside. Insofar as the other limb of the prayer is seeking for promotion is concerned, it is for the respondents to consider the said request and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the order passed in this writ petition, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
To
1. The Secretary to Government (CT & CRD) Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 128, Santhone High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 28.