IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.2165 of 2023 and WMP No.2244 of 2023 Mrs.N.Lashmi ..Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, 11th Floor, Urban Administrative Building, No.75, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028

2. The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 passed in Na.Ka.No.16450/2022/K1 by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Ms.B.Sharmila For Respondent : Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.Ru. Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader for R2

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

29.06.2022 passed by the 1st respondent imposing the punishment of censure against the petitioner.

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 31.01.2023, this Court passed the following order :-

Mr.Ru.Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

2. It is seen from records that the petitioner joined as a Junior Assistant in the year 1993 and thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant at Villupuram Municipality in the year 2006. A charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 28.03.2012. The petitioner gave her reply for the charge memo on 12.04.2012. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent, who did not even conduct an enquiry, based on the report sent by the second respondent, had proceeded to issue the impugned order against the petitioner after ten years and imposed a minor punishment of Censure.

4. In the considered view of this Court, the nature of charges against the petitioner and the resultant punishment after a period of ten years, prima facie requires interference of this Court. Ultimately, this punishment is standing in the way of the petitioner from getting her next promotion, as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions.

Post this case under the caption "for orders" on 08.02.2023.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 justifying the punishment imposed against the petitioner.

4. Heard Ms.B.Sharmila, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader for 1^st respondent and Mr.Ru. Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for 2^nd respondent.

5. The minor punishment of censure that has been imposed against the petitioner by the 1st respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court on two grounds. The first ground is that the charge memo is dated 28.03.2012 containing two charges. The main charge is that the petitioner did not properly take action even after the receipt of the audit objection. For this charge memo, the petitioner gave the explanation on 12.04.2012. Ultimately, the order of punishment has been imposed by the 1st respondent after nearly 10 years through proceedings dated 29.06.2022. The only explanation that has been given in the counter affidavit is that one of the deliquent officer gave the explanation only in the year 2022 and therefore, the order was passed only in the year 2022.

6. The fact remains that the petitioner gave the reply immediately by taking a particular stand. The proceedings was kept pending for nearly 10 years and the explanation given for this delay is not satisfactory. Therefore, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is liable to be interfered on the ground of inordinate delay.

7. The 2nd ground on which the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court is that the 1st respondent has not considered anything on the explanation that has been submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has taken a very specific stand that t