The main legal point established is that charges under Rule 17(b) must be carefully assessed to determine if they amount to misconduct. Additionally, in cases of identical charges, selective discrimination in disciplinary proceedings is impermissible, and inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings can prejudice the accused and render the proceedings unfair.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein, while serving as an Assistant under the respondent, was levelled with certain charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), through a charge memo dated 21.11.2006. The substance of the charge is that he had failed to bring out the facts in his note file regarding the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer while granting patta to the higher officials. Along with the petitioner, the Assistant Settlement Officer, against whom certain delinquencies have also been imputed, was proceeded with a common enquiry under Rule 9A of the Rules. The Enquiry Officer had held 7 out of the 9 charges as having been partially proved and one charge as not proved, through his report dated 03.03.2009. Consequently, the respondent had issued a second show cause notice dated 21.12.2009, which is claimed to have been received by the petitioner on 03.06.2010 calling for his further explanation. On the same day of receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, there was no further progress in the departmental proceedings, which prompted the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9765 of 2014, in which, this Court had directed the respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 12 weeks. After expiry of 12 weeks, the final order of punishment dated 21.12.2015 was passed, imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of three years. Challenging the order of punishment, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised four grounds questioning the order of punishment. Firstly, the petitioner, who was only an Assistant, had only obeyed the orders of the superior officer and therefore, the charges itself would not amount to a misconduct. Secondly, he would submit that the disciplinary proceedings against the co-delinquent, namely Thiru.V.Annappan, Deputy Collector/Assistant Settlement Officer against whom similar charges were framed and a common enquiry was conducted and the imputations in the charge memo were more serious against him, was dropped through G.O.(2D) No.186, Revenue (Ser.2[2]) Department, dated 24.04.2009 and therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have dropped the proceedings against the petitioner also. Thirdly, he submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 9 years from the framing of charges till the impugned order of punishment. The final ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of punishment is a non-speaking order.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent placed reliance on the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner had failed to do his duties as an Assistant, which amounts to dereliction of duties and the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect is proportionate to the levelled charges.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

5. The issue as to whether the delinquency attributed to the petitioner would amount to misconduct or not had already come up for consideration before this Court in the case of S.Subbiah Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and another reported in (2022) 1 Writ L.R. 545, wherein in identical factual matrix, it was held that the failure on the part of an Assistant to bring out all the facts and details in his note file submitted to the superior officer may not amount to dereliction of duty. While holding so, reliance had been placed on two other decisions of this Court in the cases of Y.Abudl Rahim vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2857 of 2006; and V.Saravanan Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu and 2