Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(8) 2010(2) CWC 154 in the matter of G.Maragatha Meenakshi vs. The District Collector.

9.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has contended that the delay of nine years is not without any reason and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the charge memo has been issued with an unexplained and undue delay. The learned Special Government Pleader argued that the investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department was completed only in the year 2009 and after filing a report to the Government, an order in G.O.Ms.(2D)No.642 Revenue, Ser.3(1) Department, dated 23.12.2009 came to be passed by the Government to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In the meantime, other delinquents had retired from the service. After the Government Order issued on 23.12.2009, records were called for from the District Collector, Madurai on 02.02.2010 and 24.05.2010, draft charges were framed on 07.06.2010 and the same were sent for concurrence to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department on 18.01.2011 and the draft charges were approved by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department on 29.01.2011. Thereafter, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 19.02.2011 and served on him on 24.02.2011. The petitioner has also given his explanation to the charge memo on 10.03.2011. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, there is no undue delay on the part of the respondent in issuing the charge memo. In support of his contention, the learned Special Government Pleader has relied on a decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 2925 in the matter of Secretary, Forest Department vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury for the proposition that any delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceeding is not always fatal and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Special Government Pleader has also relied on an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.4453 of 2009, dated 17.03.2010 in the matter of Dr.K.Venkatraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu to substantiate his contention that the delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceeding is not fatal.

12.From the reading of the above said explanation given by the respondent with regard to the delay of 9 years in issuing the charge memo, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent has not at all explained the delay in a convincing or acceptable manner. Except by stating that the delay in taking disciplinary action against the petitioner was due to administrative reasons, the respondent has not stated any other details as to how the delay of 9 years had occurred in issuing the charge memo. No doubt that the learned Special Government Pleader, while arguing the matter has given certain dates and events based on instructions received from the respondent. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department was completed only in the year 2009 and thereafter, the Government has passed Government Order on 23.12.2009 to initiate the departmental proceedings. Further, pursuant to the issuance of the said G.O. a draft charges were framed only on 07.06.2010 and sent for concurrence of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department only on 18.01.2011. After receiving approval from the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department on 29.01.2011, the impugned charge memo was issued on 19.02.2011. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, there is no undue delay on the part of the respondent in issuing the charge memo. In support of his contention, the learned Special Government Pleader has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 2925 (cited supra), wherein at paragraph 17, it is held as follows:-