Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings can lead to prejudice against the employee, violating principles of natural justice and warranting the setting aside of penalties.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to call for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to order in G.O.(2D).No.303, Revenue Department and Disaster Management Services Wing Ser 4(1) dated 16.10.2017 and to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire on 31.12.2007 and grant him all consequential benefits and disburse his pensionary benefits with interest within a time frame.

2. Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Ariyalur, Namakkal District. The second respondent issued a charge memo on 26.04.2006 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules. It is alleged that some irregularities have occurred in the issuance of patta in respect of lands in Survey Nos.94/2 & 93/3 in Tholur Village. Even the above charge memo was subsequently withdrawn and a revised charge memo was issued on 14.11.2006 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.11.2006 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report stating that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. Though the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007, he was not allowed to retire. After ten years, the first respondent passed a final order by imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner.

4. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-delinquents were also involved in the occurrence and the petitioner alone was imposed with the major punishment of dismissal from service; no joint enquiry was conducted; the petitioner has been discriminated and affected due to the inordinate delay of 10 years.

5. Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the duties and responsibilities of the Village Administrative Officer are different from other delinquents such as Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar. The Village Administrative Officer has got a duty to protect the lands and safeguard the interest of the Government. The petitioner had recommended to issue patta in the name of the private persons for the land which has been treated as Kuttai Poramboke. The passage of time cannot stand as a legal bar for imposing penalty for the serious lapses committed by the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner and other delinquents are different and hence the petitioner is not prejudiced due to the conduction of the individual enquiry. The enquiry has been conducted after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the charges were also proved basing on the records. There is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the award of punishment of dismissal from service. As the petitioner has been dismissed from service, he is not entitled to the pensionary benefits.

6. The petitioner was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer only in the year 2001. Within five years of his service he received a charge memo on the allegation that he has wrongly recommended to grant patta in the name of four private individuals in respect of Survey Nos.94/2 and 93/3, Tholur Village comprising an extent of 0.72.0 Hectares. As the lands have been originally classified as Kuttai Poromboke and it belonged to the Government, it is alleged that the petitioner had deliberately given a false statement and recommended patta to be granted in the name of individuals.

7. Further, the charges against the petitioner is that in view of the lapses on the part of the petitioner, he had omitted to perform his duty with absolute integrity and devotion and in violation of Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules , 1973. The lapse on the part of the petitioner was no doubt serious in nature because it involves the propert