Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. Ramesh, J.
S.David Thirugnanam - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD).Nos.27144 of 2019 and 6390 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.23457, 23458 of 2019, 11118 of 2020, 4986 and 11249 of 2021
Decided On : 29-08-2022
Delay in Framing Charges - Government Lands Sub-Division - Rule 9A of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Quashing of Charge Memos
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash charge memos alleging sub-division of Government lands with dishonest intention. The charges were framed after 8-10 years, leading to challenges based on delay and discrimination. The respondents argued the delay was due to administrative reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the delay in framing charges to be inordinate and unexplained, citing precedents where such delays were deemed fatal to the department. The dropping of action against a co-delinquent who had retired was found to be in accordance with Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, and not discriminatory. The court also held that a joint enquiry should have been conducted for co-delinquents from different departments, as per Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Issues: The issues raised included the delay in framing charges, discrimination in dropping action against a co-delinquent, and the conduct of separate enquiries for co-delinquents from different departments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in framing charges was inordinate and unexplained, and the dropping of action against a retired co-delinquent was not discriminatory. It also emphasized the need for a joint enquiry for co-delinquents from different departments, as per Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge memos dated 28.06.2019 and 24.02.2021, citing the delay in framing charges, the need for a joint enquiry for co-delinquents from different departments, and the unexplained delay between 2016 and 2021. The Writ Petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the third respondent in Rc.Y2/8357/2019 (sy)(2) dated 28.06.2019, consequential impugned charge memo of the third respondent in Rc.Y2/8357/2019 dated 28.06.2019 and order of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.A2/1163/2019 dated 28.06.2019 in allowing the petitioner to retire from service subject to disciplinary action under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle entire retirement benefits payable to the petitioner including death cum retirement gratuity, general provident fund, commuted value of pension, special provident fund amount, terminal earned leave salary for 240 days, half pay privilege leave salary and encashment amount of unearned leave on private affairs for 90 days and difference in monthly pension with arrears payable from 01.07.2019 together with 18% interest per annum payable from 30.06.2019 to till the date on which the retirement benefits are settled to the petitioner.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo issued by the respondent in proceedings charge memo in Ref.No.Ser.2(2)/30979/2014-1 dated 24.02.2021, quash the same.
The charges against both the petitioners herein are that they are alleged to have recommended/approved for sub-division of the Government Poramboke lands in Survey No.654 into Survey Nos.654/1 and 654/2, with a dishonest intention to favour private individuals, by misusing their official position. While the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.27144 of 2019 was serving as a Senior Draughtsman, as per the statement of the substance of the allegations made in the charge memo, dated 28.06.2019, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.6390 of 2021 was serving as a Tahsildar at the relevant point of time, against whom charges have been levelled under charge memo, dated 24.02.2021. Both the charges have been framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Since the incident giving rise to the allegations in these charge memos, as well as the grounds raised in both the Writ Petitions, are one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of through a common order.
2. Similar charges were also levelled against eight other revenue officials. While one of the officials namely Thiru.P.Thangaraj, Maintenance Surveyor, was permitted to retire on 31.07.2011 and no charges were levelled against him, another co-delinquent, namely, Thiru.Sivagnanam, Village Administrative Officer, was proceeded with a separate enquiry for similar set of charges under a charge memo, dated 29.05.2015. The incidents giving rise to framing of the charges against Thiru.Sivagnanam and the petitioners herein, are one and the same. The enquiry officer had held all the charges against Thiru.Sivagnanam as “not proved”, through his report, dated 17.05.2017. In consequence to this report, the disciplinary authority, through his order, dated 11.06.2017, had accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and dropped all further proceedings in the domestic enquiry.
3. The common grounds of challenge raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners, are as follows:
(ii) Since the disciplinary authority had permitted one of the co-delinquents, namely, Thiru. P. Thangaraj, Maintenance Surveyor, to retire in spite of the recommendation of the District Collector to initiate departmental proceedings against him, the present charges against the petitioners herein, cannot be proce
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....
Delay in initiating the departmental proceedings and splitting up of delinquencies into separate charge memos are fatal and illegal, respectively.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
Inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings prejudices the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay.
A charge memo against a retired government employee is invalid if issued beyond the four-year limitation period and is legally unsustainable if based on vague charges.
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 agai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to avoid inordinate delays in disciplinary proceedings, the serious prejudice and mental distress caused by such delays, and the court's a....
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
