Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Rasu – Appellant
Versus
The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P.No. 20071 of 2018 & W.M.P.No. 23532 of 2018
Decided on : 15-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Rajkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A.N. Thambidurai, Special Government Pleader.
The duty of delinquent officials to cooperate in departmental disciplinary proceedings and the limited grounds on which a charge memo can be challenged.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - State of Punjab vs. V.K.Khanna and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 330], State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.Ranganathan [2010 (3) MLJ 625], Ishwari Prasad Gupta vs. Union of India and Another [decided on 1.9.1989 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.14054 and 30803 of 1988 in Special Leave Petition(C) No.2103 of 1987] - The court discussed the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner, the delay in concluding the proceedings, and the legal principles related to mala fide intentions, time limits for concluding proceedings, and the duty of delinquent officials to cooperate in the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Deputy Director of Agriculture, was placed under suspension on account of pending departmental disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner challenged the charge memo and suspension orders, alleging mala fide intentions and delay in concluding the proceedings. The respondents argued that the delay was due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation and serious allegations against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the writ petitioner were serious and specific, and the delay in concluding the proceedings was attributed to the petitioner's lack of cooperation. The court emphasized the duty of delinquent officials to cooperate in the proceedings and allowed the authorities to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the challenge to the charge memo and suspension orders, the delay in concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the duty of delinquent officials to cooperate in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charge memo can only be challenged on limited grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, mala fide intentions, or violation of statutory rules. The court emphasized the duty of delinquent officials to cooperate in the proceedings and allowed the authorities to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings expeditiously and pass final orders, while dismissing the writ petition with no order as to costs.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to (i) to the proceedings of the Director of Agriculture, Chennai, the second respondent herein made in his office Reference No.Pa.O.Na.1/2/117581/2016 dated 22.3.2017, (ii) G.O.(3D) No.7, Agriculture (AA2) Department dated 25.1.2018 issued by the first respondent (iii) G.O.(3D) No.10, Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 31.1.2018 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and forbear the respondents herein from in any manner proceed further with the enquiry as held in identical case by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwari Prasad Gupta's case (SLP(C) No.2103/1987) dated 1.9.1989 and direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to retire from service and disburse all the retiral benefits due to the petitioner and pay the regular pension and all other service benefits including promotion which has been withheld on account of the Charge Memo and disburse all the consequential service and monetary benefits and all the accrued arrears.)
The charge memo dated 22.3.2017 issued by the second respondent, the order of suspension issued in G.O.(3D) No.7, Agriculture (AA2) Department dated 25.1.2018 and the order issued in G.O.(3D) No.10, Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 31.1.2018 issued by the first respondent, not allowing the writ petitioner to retire from service, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture and on the eve of his retirement, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on account of the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in proceedings dated 22.3.2017.
3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that pursuant to the initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, a charge memo was issued in proceedings dated 22.3.2017. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.6.2017. Challenging the said order of suspension, the writ petitioner filed WP No.16314 of 2017 and on account of the interim order of stay granted in that writ petition, the writ petitioner was subsequently reinstated into service.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that though this Court wanted to quash the impugned charge memo, the learned counsel made a submission that the writ petitioner will face the charge memo. The very same ground is raised in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, more specifically, in paragraph-8 of the affidavit, which is extracted hereunder:-
“The petitioner states that subsequently the Government has revoked the order of suspension in and by G.O.D.No.226, Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 28.2.2017. When the matter was listed for hearing on 15.9.2017, this Honourable Court wanted to quash the impugned Charge Memo itself on the ground of malafides and asked the counsel for the petitioner as to whether any writ petition has been filed to quash the Charge Memo. But the counsel for the petitioner bonafidely represented before this Hon'ble Court that no writ petition has been filed. Further, he added that as the petitioner is facing retirement on 31.1.2018 he will cooperate with the enquiry provided a short time may be fixed for the conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final order so that he may get his retiral benefits early.”
5. It is further stated that this Court appreciated the bonafides of the writ petitioner and asked the Special Government Pleader to complete the enquiry and pass final orders. Three months time was initially fixed to conclude the departmental disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders. The Department was unable to conclude the enquiry and they have filed petitions seeking extension of time and the time was also extended by this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the entire initiation of departmental
