Unjustified delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and the interpretation of service rules in the context of minor lapses

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings No.N.K.70770/2004/A3, to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant all attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner joined service in the Revenue Department as Typist in the year 1964. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1987 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of District Tahsildar at Distillery Office, Bannariamman Sugar Limited, Chinnapuliyur, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. When he was serving as an Assistant, in the year 1987, in the office of the District Supply Officer, Erode, the petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings initiated by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Erode under the provisions of Section 161 of IPC and section 5 (2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, he was placed under suspension. After the initiation of trial by the Criminal Court the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court by awarding two years rigorous imprisonment. Due to the conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1991 against conviction in C.C.No.294 of 1988. This Court, by order dated 16.07.1996, in C.A.No.4 of 1991, was pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence rendered by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, and, thereby, the petitioner was acquitted. Against the order of acquittal passed by this Court, the State also did not choose to file an appeal before the Apex Court and, thereby, the order of acquittal granted by this Court has become final and binding on the parties.

3. After accepting the findings of this Court in C.A.No.4 of 1991, the Department also thought it fit to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. Accordingly, the respondents/Department issued G.O.Ms.No.335 Revenue Service No.1112, dated 26.03.1997, for regularisation of service with all benefits from the date of his reinstatement in service on 19.02.1997. The petitioner has been discharging his duties truthfully without any complaints whatsoever from his higher authorities. Whileso, when the petitioner was having only 15 days to retire from service on super annuation, the respondents issued a charge memo, which is impugned in the present writ petition, alleging that the petitioner committed a misconduct 11 years ago, i.e. on 27.01.1987. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner did not despatch an order passed on 29.01.1987, but he had dispatched it only on the next day, i.e., 30.01.1987. Therefore, the petitioner was alleged to have violated Rule 20 Sub-Clause 1 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the present impugned order on four grounds. Firstly, the present impugned order is liable to be quashed by this Court, since the respondent has initiated and issued the charge memo without any reason, after a very long delay, only in the year 2004 for alleged lapse said to have been committed in the year 1987. Secondly, when the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner from all the criminal charges, by order dated 16.07.1996, and the Department has also reinstated the petitioner with all back wages, since then the petitioner has been working satisfactorily without giving any room for any complaint whatsoever in the Department, whileso, if at all the Department wanted to proceed against the petitioner for violation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, it should have done so at least in the year 1996 or in the year 1997 by issuing the charge memo, but they kept quite for almost seven years from the date of reinstatement of the petitioner in service and