Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1726
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
T. Ranganathan
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government
WP.Nos.714 and 853 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.No.941 of 2005
Decided On : 13-06-2008
For the Petitioner:Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel, R. Parthiban, Advocate. For the Respondent:P.S. Raman, Additional Advocate General, M.R. Jothimanian, Advocate.
Headnote:
Rule 17(b) - Challenge to charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 17A, Rule 9(c), Rule 9-A - The judgment discusses the competence of the Secretary to Government, P&AR Department, to issue a charge memo against the petitioner and the delay in the initiation of proceedings. It interprets the relevant rules and concludes that the first respondent had the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The judgment also highlights the distinction between Rule 9(c) and Rule 9-A and their applicability in cases involving multiple government servants from the same or different departments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and sought a direction to include his name in the promotion panel to the post of Deputy Secretary to Government. The charge related to alleged irregularities in the issuance of appointment orders in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department in 1995 when the petitioner was a Section Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent had the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It also concluded that the delay in the initiation and progress of the proceedings was unexplained. The court dismissed the challenge to the charge memo but allowed the petition related to the denial of promotion, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the pending charge memo.
Issues: Competence of the Secretary to Government, P&AR Department to issue charge memo, delay in initiation of proceedings, and denial of promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 17(b), Rule 17A, Rule 9(c), and Rule 9-A to determine the competence of the first respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and the applicability of the rules in cases involving multiple government servants from the same or different departments.
Final Decision: W.P.No.853 of 2005 challenging the charge memo was dismissed, and W.P.No.714 of 2005 related to the denial of promotion was allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the pending charge memo and to pass appropriate orders within two months.
Challenging a charge memo issued by the first respondent under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner has come up with the writ petition W.P.No.853 of 2005. Similarly, the petitioner has come up with the other writ petition W.P.No.714 of 2005, seeking a direction to the first respondent to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary to Government, issued in his proceedings dated 110. 2004.
2. I have heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
3. The petitioner wasoriginally selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Assistant (later re-designated as Assistant) in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on 29. 1974. He was promoted as Assistant Section Officer on 13. 1977 and as Section Officer on 20.4.1993. The petitioner has been working as Section Officer in the Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department ever since 7. 1996.
4. Before his posting to the Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, he was a Section Officer in Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. The charge memo related to the alleged irregularities in the issuance of appointment orders to 27 persons as Work Inspectors/Town Planning Inspectors/Junior Engineers/Cleaners/Electrician Grade-II/Building Inspector/ Water Works Overseer/Pipeline Fitter Grade-II, in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, in the year 1995, when the petitioner was a Section Officer in M.E.III Section of the said department.
5. The only charge framed against the petitioner in the charge memo is that he failed to discharge his legitimate duties as Section Officer in M.E.III Section in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, during the year 1995 and failed to examine the cases of 27 NMRs properly and caused the issuance of orders appointing them to the above posts in relaxation of the Rules even without ascertaining the genuineness of the candidates and non availability of similarly placed persons in the department.
6. Immediately on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted a defence statement on 20.8.2001 questioning the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on various grounds including the jurisdiction of the Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. But by then, similar charge memos had already been issued to several persons in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and hence the Government issued G.O.(D) No.232 P&AR Department dated 212. 2001 appointing a Deputy Secretary as the Enquiry Officer.
7. Subsequently, the aforesaid Government Order was cancelled by an order in G.O.(D) No.41, P&AR Department, dated 13. 2002. But by another order in G.O.(D) No.42, P&AR Department, dated 13. 2002, the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings was appointed by the Government as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against all the delinquent Officers. This was done under Rule 17A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Subsequently, by an order in G.O. (D) No.95, P&AR Department, dated 4. 2003, the Government appointed the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Thanjavur as the Enquiry Officer.
8. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.1535 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the Government to complete the proceedings and pass final orders within a time frame. The said application was ordered by the Tribunal on 24. 2003, directing the Government to pass final orders within 4 months. But no final orders could be passed within the period stipulated and the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions.
9. Though the petitioner challenges the charge memo both on the ground of lack of competence on the part of the first respondent and also on the
