Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
Parameswaran - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government Rural Development Department Fort St.George - Respondents
Writ Petition No.13361 of 2003
Decided On : 23 November 2005
Delay in Departmental Proceedings - Administrative Tribunal - Charges under Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - [Article 226] - [Delay in Departmental Proceedings] - [Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 17(a)] - [Summary: The court discussed the delay in departmental proceedings and the impact on the petitioner, referencing the charges under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The court highlighted the unexplained reasons for not pursuing earlier charge memos, the mental agony suffered by the petitioner, and the relevance of a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was subjected to multiple charge memos and departmental proceedings over a period of 20 years. The petitioner challenged the third charge memo before the Administrative Tribunal, citing delay and lack of justification for the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in pursuing the earlier charge memos and the mental agony suffered by the petitioner were not adequately considered by the Tribunal. The court also referenced a relevant Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the third charge memo, issued after a significant delay and without adequate justification, was justified, and whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's application was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unexplained delay in pursuing earlier charge memos, the mental agony suffered by the petitioner, and the relevance of a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge memo and allowed the writ petition, entitling the petitioner to all retiral benefits in accordance with the law.
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.)
P. Sathasivam, J.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 04.07.2002 made in O.A.No.2420 1994, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:
(a) The petitioner was appointed as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II on 01.08.1963 at Sengamangalam in Salem District. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District and to Radhapuram Block Development Office. On 11.06.1985, he was promoted as Assistant and posted at Valliyoor Panchayat Union. While so, on 12.03.1985 and on 05.09.1985, he received notices from the Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, directing him to refund the advance amount of Rs.13,000/-. Thereafter, on 29.09.1985, he was placed under suspension by the District Collector on the ground that an enquiry into grave charge was contemplated against him. On 16.10.1985, he submitted a representation denying the allegations leveled against him. In spite of his detailed representation, on 22.11.1985, the District Development Officer, Cheranmadevi issued a charge memo by invoking Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, by framing three charges against him. He submitted an explanation detailing the entire facts. Meantime, his suspension was extended periodically and finally upto 30.09.1986 or till the final orders were passed in the Departmental proceedings initiated against him.
(b) Pursuant to the charge memo dated 22.11.1985, an enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Development Officer on 14.11.1986. Without passing any order on the charge memo dated 22.11.1985, the third respondent issued another charge memo dated 09.11.1987, framing the same charges as found in the earlier charge memo dated 22.11.1985. He also submitted explanations for the second charge memo on 08.06.1988 and 06.07.1988, denying the charges contained therein. An enquiry was conducted with regard to second charge memo on 14.11.1986 and Enquiry Officer submitted his final report to the second respondent on 02.11.1988. Since the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance, he filed O.A.No.5002 of 1993 before the Tribunal for setting aside the order of suspension dated 29.09.1985. On 25.10.1993, direction was issued by the Tribunal for payment of subsistence allowance as per Rules.
(c) While so, the second respondent, District Collector, Tirunelveli District, issued a fresh charge memo dated 05.02.1994, leveling the same set of charges, contained in the earlier charge memos dated 22.11.1985 and 09.11.1987, for which, he submitted his explanation on 01.03.1994, requesting the second respondent to drop the charges, as the same are belated and unwarranted. Without considering his explanation, a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed.
(d) Questioning the third charge memo, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2420 of 1994 before the Tribunal. The main ground taken before the Tribunal was that the subsequent charge memo (third charge memo) for the same set of facts and subject matter which were already put on enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officers and the outcome of which enquiry was not disclosed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He also challenged the charge memo on the ground of limitation. The Government also passed order on 30.12.1994, not allowing him to retire from service on the date of his superannuation i.e., 31.12.1994 on the ground that enquiry against grave charges of criminal misconduct is pending against him. In the meantime, the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.25 of 1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor ended in acquittal on 06.10.1997 and the said order was also communicated to the respondents. In view of the same, according to the petitioner, there is no necessity for in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
