The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in disciplinary proceedings, violation of natural justice, non-compliance with regulations, lack of reasoning in the order imposing punishment, and undue haste in the proceedings render the disciplinary proceedings bad in law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to set aside the order dated 27.02.2020 made in W.P. No.6172 of 2012 and allow this writ appeal.)

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order in W.P.No.6172 of 2011 insofar as the order in G.O.(2D).No:5, HHT & K(G1) department dated 30.03.2010 and order in G.O.Ms.No.160, HHT & K(G1) department dated 24.11.2010 issued by the appellant were set aside.

2. Brief facts :

At the outset, it may be relevant to state that this is the 3rd round of litigation against disciplinary proceedings which commenced with issuance of charge memo against the respondent/ writ petitioner on 31.03.1986. The gravamen of the charge was that the respondent/writ petitioner who was serving as the Deputy Director of Sericulture, had issued self cheque and withdrawn money to the tune of Rs.35,796.25/-. It is the case of the appellant-Department that it was not permissible for the respondent/writ petitioner to have withdrawn monies by way of self cheque. On the basis of the pendency of the charge, the respondent/writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.05.1986. The respondent/writ petitioner suffered an order in G.O.(2D).No.1 H, H.T&K(G1) Department dated 19.02.1996 whereby he was imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of 2 years and recovery of a sum of Rs.31,894.95/- in 25 monthly instalments was ordered.

3. The above orders of punishment was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No.13290 of 2006. The said order was set aside by this Court and the matter was remitted with a direction to the appellant/respondent therein to consider the explanation submitted by the respondent/ writ petitioner and to pass a reasoned order, within a period of 2 months. Thereafter, the appellant vide order dated 20.06.2008 proceeded to treat the period of suspension as not spent on duty from 06.05.1986 to 30.06.1992 and on duty from 01.07.1992 to 10.11.1992. The respondent/ writ petitioner challenged the same in W.P. No.19552 of 2008, this Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 20.06.2008 with a direction to pass final orders in the departmental proceedings on or before 31.03.2010.

4. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court, a show cause notice was issued on 05.03.2010 wherein it was proposed to impose the punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for a period of 18 months while also proposing recovery of a sum of Rs.31,894.95/-. The respondent/ writ petitioner submitted its objection/explanation on 19.03.2010 to the show cause notice dated 05.03.2010. In the meanwhile, by letter dated 10.03.2010, the opinion of the TNPSC was sought and the same was given by TNPSC on 26.03.2010. Immediately thereafter, the respondent/ writ petitioner was issued with order dated 30.03.2010 wherein penalty of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500 per month for a period of 18 months and recovery of a sum of Rs.31,894.95/- was made, vide order in G.O.Ms.No.160 , Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (G1) Department dated 24.11.2010 was imposed. With regard to the regularisation of period of suspension, order was issued, treating the period of suspension from 06.05.1986 to 30.06.1992 as period not spent on duty and from 01.07.1992 to 10.11.1992 as spent on duty.

5. Aggrieved by the above proceedings of the department, the respondent/ writ petitioner had preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.6172 of 2011. The learned Judge on considering the rival submissions of the petitioner and the Respondent/writ petitioner in the writ petition, allowed the writ petition in view of the following reasons:

a. Delay :

The learned Judge found that the proceedings which commenced with issuance of charge memo on 31.03.1986 culminated in an order of punishment on 19.02.1996, i.e., after 10 years. Importantly, the enquiry report itsel