IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 08.04.2022

Pronounced on : 11.05.2022

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

W.P. No. 25077 of 2009

and W.M.P.Nos. 2 of 2010 and 6885 of 2022

S.Udaiyasankar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep.by its Special Secretary to Government,

Finance (T & A1) Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

2. The Treasury Officer,

District Treasury,

Cuddalore.

3. The Principal Secretary/

Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,

Treasuries and Accounts Department,

Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

(R3 impleaded as per order dt.29.04.2010

in WMP.No1/2010 in WP.No.25077/2009)

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1^st

respondent dated 13.10.2009 in G.O.Ms.No.502 Finance (T&A-1)

Department, quash the same and consequently direct the

respondents to pay the petitioner death cum gratuity, award

costs.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthupandian

For Respondents: Mr.R.L.Karthika

Government Advocate

O R D E R

The short question that arises for consideration is as to

whether the impugned order passed beyond the time lines/period

fixed by this Court to complete the disciplinary proceedings

would prove fatal to the validity of the order and render the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

proceedings bad in law.

2. The petitioner who was working as a Sub-Treasury Officer,

Cuddalore was issued a charge memo on 24.01.2002 inter alia

alleging lapses in payment of Military pension. The petitioner

submitted his reply to the said charge memo vide letter dated

19.04.2002 which was forwarded to the enquiry officer. There was

considerable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

in O.A.No.1361 of 2004, praying for a direction to the

respondents to expeditiously dispose of the disciplinary

proceedings. The tribunal was pleased to issue a direction to

the respondents to dispose the enquiry and pass final orders as

early as possible. However, despite the above direction the

disciplinary proceedings were kept pending, the petitioner filed

Writ Petition in W.P.No.26729 and 26730 of 2004 before this

Court, praying for a direction to complete the disciplinary

proceedings initiated vide charge memo dated 24.01.2002. This

Court was pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of that order. In other words in terms

of the orders of this Court, the disciplinary proceedings ought

to be concluded on or before 20.11.2004. Pursuant to that a

letter dated 02.11.2004 was issued to the petitioner calling for

explanation to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his

reply to the enquiry report on 01.12.2004. Thereafter, on

30.10.2008 the petitioner was allowed to retire pending

disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order came to be

passed finally on 13.10.2009, which is almost 5 years from the

date of receipt of order of this Court in W.P.No.26729 and 26730

of 2004, wherein direction was issued to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months.

3. To a pointed question as to whether they have obtained

any extension of time inasmuch this Court vide order

dt.20.09.2004 had specifically directed conclusion of

disciplinary proceedings within a period of 2 months thereon. It

was submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that no such

direction nor any petition seeking extension of time was filed.

The impugned order having been passed 5 years thereafter, will

be in gross violation of the said direction.

4. Without examining the merits of the case this Court is of

the vi