Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the accused and may lead to the quashing of charges. G.O.338 prohibits the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against a person who has ceased to be a government servant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the first respondent to call for the records of the impugned charge memo of the second respondent issued to the petitioner in C.No.1266/2008/A1, dated 28.01.2010 in T.D.P.Case No.110/2008 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to revoke his suspension and to settle his pensionary benefits and other benefits entitled to the petitioner.)

1. In contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore [TDP] under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as “Rules”], the petitioner herein, was placed under suspension on 28.10.2008 and was also not allowed to retire on the date of his superannuation (i.e.) on 28.01.2010, on the strength of the charges which came to be framed against him by the second respondent herein.

1.2. The nature of delinquency attributed in the charge memo in T.D.P. Case No.110 of 2008, was with regard to certain misconducts relating to the period between 12.04.1999 to 15.01.2002 when the petitioner was employed as a Regional Transport Officer.

1.3. Through the inquiry report dated 30.03.2012, the charges against the petitioner was held as “not proved”. However, the first respondent herein had deviated from the Inquiry Officer''s report and called for petitioner''s further representation, which was also submitted on 02.08.2013.

1.4. Since no final orders has been passed on the petitioner''s further representation, even after a lapse of more than two years also, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court and by an order dated 30.06.2015 passed in W.P.18917 of 2015 and this Court had directed the first respondent to pass final orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order. Inspite of the orders of this Court, no final orders have been passed till date, which prompted the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner, who was also subjected to another disciplinary proceedings in TDP. No.53 of 2008, was imposed with the punishment of ''removal from service'' through G.O. (2D) No.20, Home (Transport-II) Department, dated 29.01.2021. In this background, the petitioner had challenged his charge memo dated 28.01.2010, together with the consequential benefits.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of G.O. (Ms) No.338, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel. N) Department, dated 09.04.1984, the petitioner who was removed from service earlier, cannot be proceeded with the present T.D.P case now. He also submitted that, the delinquency relates to a period about 10 years back from the charge memo and therefore, the charge memo, is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that, various disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein, were all pending before the TDP. The cases which are pending before the TDP viz., Case Nos.53, 110, 46, 47 of 2008, are under process with the Government and therefore, the present TDP case, should come to a logical end.

6. As pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondents herein had earlier imposed the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner on 29.01.2021 in TDP. Case No.53 of 2008. The Government in G.O.338, dated 09.04.1984, had held that when a Government servant is removed from service, further departmental proceedings against him, cannot be continued. The relevant paragraph of the Government Order reads as follows:

“2