JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.18206 of 2019, dated 01.04.2021. 2.The Writ Petition was filed for Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned charge memo, dated 29.09.2008 and consequential impugned G.O. passed in G.O.(3D)No.108, Agriculture (Ve.Ni.8)

Department, dated 17.07.2019.

3.The brief facts as stated in the writ petition W.P.(MD)No.

18206 of 2019 are that the petitioner was appointed as an Agriculture Officer on 23.09.1996. When he was working as Agricultural Development Officer in the year 2008, the respondent had issued impugned charge memo, dated 29.09.2008, alleging that the writ petitioner had failed to conduct Farmers Field School Trainings properly under the integrated Cereals Development Programme in four villages in Sivagangai Block during the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and created false records as if the said trainings were actually conducted as per the schedule and the farmers were provided with tea refreshment, one IPM Kits, while in fact, without supplying the same, misappropriated Rs.29,625/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five only), the amount meant for training.

4. The writ petitioner participated in the enquiry. The petitioner alleged that the charge memo was issued on 29.09.2008, the enquiry report was submitted on 29.05.2013 and the respondent has not completed the enquiry proceedings in time. In the year 2014 the respondent has forwarded the operative portion of the enquiry report and sought an additional explanation and the petitioner raised objection on 07.02.2015. Even after additional explanation, the respondent has not completed the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter on 23.12.2016 the government has proposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 18 months without cumulative effect. As per the Advisory Department recommendations it was proposed to impose major punishment of compulsory retirement. Because of the delayed disciplinary proceedings and pendency of this disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was deprived promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture bypassing the seniority in the year 2018. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner had filed W.P. (MD)No.11969 of 2018 and this Court, vide order, dated 06.06.2018, directed the respondent to pass final orders on merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In spite of the outer time limit fixed by the order, dated 06.06.2018, the respondent had not passed any final orders. Thereafter, the respondent had passed the punishment order dated 17.07.2019 which was impugned in the Writ Petition. According to the writ petitioner, it is beyond the extension of time prescribed by the High Court.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the imposition of the punishment is highly disproportionate, since for the identical charge, the similarly placed Agriculture Development Officer, namely Mr.N.Raja, the respondent had chosen to give a lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner had eleven more years of service and hence, the impugned punishment is excess for a flimsy charge. The disciplinary authority has sought opinion from TNPSC, where it was recommended to impose a major punishment, since it is a charge of misappropriation. The petitioner submitted that the Assistant Director had not issued any sanction order for granting fund for conducting Farmers School Programme to the petitioner. As per the orders of the Director of Agriculture, the fund was provided to one Mr.Arumugam, Agriculture Officer (Extension) and not to the writ petitioner. The same was substantiated by referring to the submissions of one Vellaichamy. Hence, according to the petitioner, the allegation of misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 29,625/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five only), is abs