Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
K.P.P. Panneerchelvan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Secretary to Government Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 1906, 3621, 8444 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 1926, 1927, 3655, 3656, 9241, 9242, 24660 of 2017
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - Charges issued after a lapse of almost 8 years - Proceedings quashed - Petitioner allowed to retire and settle retirement benefits
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, sought to retire from service on attaining superannuation. However, he was slapped with charge memos containing allegations of dereliction of duties dating back to 2008-2009 and 2010-2012. The petitioner challenged the charge memos and suspension orders, alleging belated initiation of proceedings and bias in singling him out for action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges were issued after a significant delay, with no satisfactory explanation provided by the respondents. It noted that the lapses allegedly committed by the petitioner came to light much later, and immediate steps were taken by the respondents. However, the court deemed this explanation unsatisfactory and unjustifiable, especially in light of the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The court also highlighted the inaction against other officials and the acceptance of a report dropping further action against the petitioner by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and the alleged bias in singling out the petitioner for action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in initiating the proceedings was unjustifiable and prejudicial to the petitioner. It cited legal precedents to support its decision to quash the proceedings due to the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memos. The court emphasized that the respondents' reasons for the delay were unacceptable and not justifiable, especially in the context of the duties and responsibilities outlined in The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the proceedings, and directed the respondents to revoke the suspension of the petitioner, permit him to retire, and settle all retirement and service benefits due to him within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
(Prayers in W.P.No.1906 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent made in R.C.No.615/2016/PA1 dated 10.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation and to settle all the retirement benefits.
W.P.No.3621 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent made in G.O. (2D) No.7 Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CE2) Department dated 22.02.2013 and G.O.(3D) No.03 Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CE2) Department dated 28.02.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revoke the suspension and permit me to retire from service and settle all the service benefits.
W.P.No.8444 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.1712/2015/Sapal undated which was served on the petitioner on 23.02.2017 and the consequential proceedings issued by the first respondent in Lr.No.2417/CE2/2014-17 dated 25-4-2016 and quash the same.)
Common Order:
W.P.No.1906 of 2017
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 10.08.2016, on the file of the 2nd respondent and to consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from services, on his attaining the age of superannuation and settle all his retirement benefits.
2. The gist of the petitioner’s case is that he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and posted as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society on 24.09.1981 and that thereafter promoted as a Joint Registrar on 15.12.1989 and as an Additional Registrar of Co-operative Society on 16.04.2005 and thereafter as a Registrar of Co-operative Society (Housing) on 08.12.2008. When the petitioner was due to retire on 28.02.2013, on superannuation, the petitioner was slapped with a charge memo containing 3 charges viz.,
i) that he failed to take action against a particular Deputy Registrar (Housing) and other officers for misappropriation of society funds to the tune of Rs.75 lakhs;
ii) he failed to take action against the officers mentioned in Charge no.1 for the act of causing financial loss of Rs.9,00,000/-per annum towards interest, and;
iii) he had suspended Mr.Balakrishnan, one of the officers mentioned in the charge No.1 on 21.08.2009 without mentioning any reason for suspension and subsequently for reinstating the said Mr.Balakrishnan on 17.09.2009, without taking any action against him.
3. According to the petitioner, all the three charges were vague and frivolous. In so far as the 1st and 2nd charges, he would contend that the scheme was approved by the then Registrar (Housing) even before the petitioner joined as Registrar (Housing) and in so far as the suspension of Mr.Balakrishnan, the petitioner had issued the suspension order with an aim to proceed against the said person, departmentally. Regarding revoking the suspension of Mr.Balakrishnan, the petitioner would contend that since he was satisfied that the suspended officer was not likely to tamper with the evidence or commit the very same delinquency again, it was not necessary to continue the order of suspension and therefore the petitioner revoked the order of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from the said post on 24.09.2009 and even subsequently the said Mr.Balakrishnan was allowed to continue till 11.04.2011, without even a transfer posting. Though the petitioner worked as a Registrar (Housing) only for a short span time, namely, between 10.12.2008 and 24.09.2009,
Protracted disciplinary proceedings without valid justification, especially post-acquittal in criminal cases, constitute harassment and must be quashed.
The main legal point established is the requirement for timely framing of charges, non-discriminatory action against co-delinquents, and the need for a joint enquiry for co-delinquents from different....
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings, and delay in disciplinary proceedings cannot be solely attributed to the respondents if it is due to the petition....
Disciplinary proceedings against a government employee should be concluded expeditiously, and any unexplained delay may vitiate the proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
