Inordinate delay in concluding departmental proceedings can be fatal to the action initiated by the respondents and can prejudice the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and granting of appropriate relief to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent vide G.O.[1D] No.243, Revenue [Service 2(2)] Department, dated 03.06.2015 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to accord the petitioner's promotion to the post of Superintendent in the year 2008.)

1. Heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner herein was levelled with two charges through a charge memo dated 16.02.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as “TNCS (D&A) Rules”]. The basis of the charges were that, while the petitioner was working as an Assistant under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO), he is alleged to have issued patta by misusing his office and without submitting a report on the application seeking for patta. The petitioner had rendered his explanation to the charge memo on 15.09.2005 itself. By an order passed in G.O.(D) No.582, Revenue [Ser/2(2)] Department, dated 31.10.2008, an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into these charges. Since there was no further development in the inquiry, the petitioner had sought for quashing the charge memo in W.P.No.28509 of 2010 and by an order dated 15.12.2010, this Court had directed the Government to take a final decision in the inquiry within a period of six months. Again the proceedings were kept pending for more than five years and since the petitioner's promotion to the post of Superintendent in the year 2008 was deferred, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1596 of 2015, seeking for quashing the charge memo and granting him promotion. In this background, the first respondent herein had passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2015, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. This order is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner herein, who was an Assistant did not have the authority to issue patta and his limited responsibility is to forward the application seeking for patta to the ASO with a note on the nature of application. Since the petitioner did not have authority to issue pattas and also since he had no powers to order the superiors with the note on the implication of the procedure or powers of the ASO to grant patta, the charges itself are baseless. Secondly, there is an inordinate delay of about 10 years from framing of the charges till the impugned order was passed and therefore the entire inquiry, resulting in the impugned punishment, is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that, the charges against the petitioner are very serious in nature, whereby a loss of Rs.93,04,115/- has occurred to the Government. It is his submission that the petitioner ought to have recorded that the application seeking for patta has been received beyond the appeal time and about the relevant provision of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, [TN Act No.26 of 1963], which prohibits issuance of a Ryotwari Patta under the Act, which he had failed and therefore the charges against the petitioner is well substantiated. On the punishment, he submitted that since the petitioner was only a Section Officer, he was imposed with the award of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect, which is proportionate to the levelled charges.

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

6. The background of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that the P