Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Elipe Dharma Rao, N. Paul Vasanthakumar, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Dept, Chennai – 600 009 and Another
Versus
T. Ranganathan
W.A. No. 1478 of 2008 and 266 of 2009
Decided On : 5th March, 2010
Disciplinary Proceedings - Jurisdiction - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b) - Summary Dismissal of Charge Memo - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner, a Section Officer, challenged a charge memo issued by the P&AR Department alleging failure to discharge duties in dealing with appointments. The petitioner argued lack of jurisdiction due to delay in framing the charge memo. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the charge memo was issued after the time granted by the Tribunal expired, without any extension of time applied for by the Department. The Court held that the proceedings cannot be continued beyond the time fixed by the Tribunal. [ISSUES] 1. Jurisdiction of the charge memo after the time granted by the Tribunal expired. 2. Justification for raising the point of delay in issuing the charge memo and completion of the enquiry. 3. Validity of the writ petition filed seeking promotion. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court emphasized that once a competent Court fixes an outer time limit to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, the parties are bound to adhere to the time granted. The Court cited precedents and held that the charge memo was vitiated due to the delay in passing final orders. [FINAL DECISION] The Court quashed the charge memo, allowed the writ petition seeking promotion, and awarded compensation to the petitioner. The promotion ordered by the single Judge was confirmed, and the Department's appeal was dismissed.
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
W.A. No. 1478 of 2008 is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. No. 714 of 2005 and W.A. No. 266 of 2009 is preferred by the respondent in W.A. No. 1478 of 2008 against the order made in W.P. No. 853 of 2005 wherein the prayer in the writ petition to quash the charge memo was rejected.
2. Both the writ petitions, filed by the appellant in W.A. No. 266 of 2009, were heard together by the learned single Judge and common order was passed on 13.6.2008. Hence, these writ appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in this common judgment will be referred to as ‘the petitioner’ and ‘Department’.
4. The case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that he was appointed on 21.9.1974 as Junior Assistant (now re-designated as Assistant) in Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was promoted as Assistant Section Officer on 14.3.1977 and as Section Officer on 27.3.1993. As on date, the petitioner has put in 35 years of service. The petitioner is serving as Section Officer in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department with effect from 1.7.1996 and according to the petitioner, the said department is the Disciplinary Authority. However, the first respondent viz., the P&AR Department framed a charge against the petitioner by letter dated 25.6.2001 alleging that the petitioner failed to discharge his legitimate duty as Section Officer, while dealing with 27 cases of NMRs, who were working in various municipal Offices and Corporations in the State of Tamil Nadu and caused issuance of orders of appointment for various posts by relaxing the rules, even without ascertaining the genuineness of the candidates and without following the procedures laid down in the Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules, the Secretariat instructions, and the Secretarial Office Manual.
5. The petitioner objected the said charge with regard to the jurisdiction aspect by stating that the P&AR Department has no jurisdiction to frame charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as it is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority, and even if the allegations are to be treated as true, no commission or omission is made out. The petitioner submitted his defence statement under protest on 20.8.2001 and contended that the incident took place in the year 1995 and thus there is inordinate delay in framing the charge. The petitioner also submitted further representations including the objection with regard to the jurisdiction on 31.12.2001, 22.3.2003, 23.9.2003, 26.2.2003, 21.4.2003 and 5.3.2003. The petitioner thereafter filed O.A. No. 1535 of 2003 and prayed for a direction to the P&AR Department to finalise the disciplinary proceeding initiated and the Tribunal by order dated 20.4.2003 directed the P&AR Department to complete the proceedings initiated in letter dated 25.6.2001, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order was communicated to the Secretary, P&AR Department on 5.5.2003.
6. The P&AR Department, by letter dated 13.10.2004, called for eligible and qualified Section Officers for promotion as Under Secretary to the Government. The Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, recommended the name of the petitioner also, as there was no charge pending as on 1.7.1996 and as no charge was framed against the petitioner by the Department till that date. Since the petitioner's due promotion was not considered in view of the pendency of the 17(b) charge issued by the P&AR Department, he filed W.P. No. 714 of 2005 and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary, P&AR Department, to include his name in the panel for promotion for the post of Under Secretary to Government, prepared on 13.10.2004.
7. The writ petitioner also
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
