Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
V. Mallika
Versus
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Department, Chennai & Others
W.P. No. 10495 of 2011 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on: 28-07-2011
Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings - Land Acquisition Act - Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - [KEYWORD] - [Land Acquisition Act] - [Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules] - The court discussed the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in relation to the alleged lapses that took place in the year 2000. The court considered the nature of the charges, gravity of the misconduct, and the extent of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, ultimately concluding that the charge memo issued against the petitioner was not tenable and liable to be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government official, was served with a charge memo for alleged lapses relating to the non-filing of appeal against enhanced compensation awarded in a land acquisition case. The petitioner argued that the charge memo was arbitrary and perverse, as the alleged lapses occurred before the petitioner assumed the relevant position. The respondents contended that the petitioner was responsible for the delay in filing the appeal, resulting in loss to the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge memo issued against the petitioner was not justified, considering the considerable delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the nature of the charges, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Court, which held that the award passed by the Sub Court in the land acquisition proceedings regarding enhancement of compensation was just and proper and required no interference.
Issues: The issues revolved around the justification of the charge memo issued against the petitioner, the responsibility for the alleged lapses, and the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the nature of the charges, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Court were crucial factors in determining the justification of the charge memo issued against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned charge memo and directing the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a specified period.
1. Heard Mr. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus, to call for the records relating to the third respondent vide proceedings No. Roc.Ser. 2(4)7731 of 2011, dated 28.3.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to pay the retirement benefits pursuant to her superannuation on 31.5.2011.
3. Thepetitioner joined in the Revenue Department as Junior Assistant on 2.7.1976 after being selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1979 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1993 and in the year, 1997 to the post of Tahsildar. In the year 2006, he was further promoted to the post of Deputy Collector and subsequently to the post of District Revenue Officer in the year 2009. According to the petitioner, so far he had put in 35 years of unblemished service and discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors.
4. While that be so, the petitioner was served with a charge memo by the third respondent vide proceedings No. Roc.Ser.2(4)/ 7731 of 2011 dated 28.3.2011 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter, ‘the Rules‘) seeking his explanation for the alleged charges relating to the non-filing of appeal against the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants in O.P. No. 23 to 25 and 27 of 1991, dated 4.12.2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As per the said award, it seems that the Sub Court, Erode had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 63,000/- per hectare which is three times over and above the compensation fixed in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the third respondent herein.
5. As per the charge memo, dated 28.3.2011, the petitioner failed to supervise the concerned Assistants in charge of land acquisition files and failed to take steps to file appeals against the award passed by the Sub Court in O.P. Nos. 23 to 25 and 27 of 1991 and thereby caused loss to the Government for a sum of Rs. 64,80,174/- on account of enhanced compensation by the Sub Court, Erode in its award. Further, the petitioner was the responsible for dismissal of the appeals on account of inordinate delay of 9 years.
6. According to the petitioner, at the time when the award passed by the Sub Court, Erode on 4.12.2000 in O.P. Nos. 23 to 25 and 27 of 1991, the petitioner was serving as Personal Assistant to District Supply Officer, Collector‘s Office, Erode and he was transferred as Tahsildar at Perunthurai only on 3.11.2003 and for filing the appeals against the award of the Sub Court, Erode is 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and by the time when he was transferred, the appeal time was over and therefore, he was not responsible for not taking the steps in filing the appeals against the award of the Sub Court, Erode and also for the alleged loss to the Government.
7. It is also case of the petitioner that the respondents have ultimately filed the- appeals with the petition for condonation of delay of 9 years in AS.SR. Nos. 8490 to 8492 of 2010 and the same were dismissed by this Court not only on the ground of delay, but also on merits holding that the similar connected appeals were already dismissed and compensation was also awarded to the land owners by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S. No. 892 of 1993 etc. Batch, dated 23.1.2002.
8. According to the petitioner, the respondents had not taken any action against the officials who were serving in the concerned department at the relevant point of time and they were permitted to
9. Thepetitioner was posted as Tahsildar only on 3.11.2003. It is the further case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the order of the Division Ben
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
