IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and WMP No.45948 of 2025 R.Thirumalakannan Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector Nagapattinam District Nagapattinam Respondent PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued by him in Na.Ka. 31798 / 2020 / Oo. Va 3 dated 19.09.2020 and to quash the same and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondent: Mr.S.Yashwanth, AGP

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 19.09.2020 thereby framed charges under Section 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (D & A) Rules.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant in the Rural Development and Panchayat Road Department on 03.02.1987. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant and thereafter as Block Development Officer. While being so, on 30.05.2024, the petitioner was suspended on the allegation that he had failed to implement and inspect various Central and State Government schemes, and he was not permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. For the alleged lapses committed by the petitioner, he was served with a Charge Memo dated 19.09.2020 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, consisting four charges. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice to submit his explanation. He submitted his explanation on 08.10.2020 denying the charges levelled against him. On receipt of the same, the respondent failed to pass any orders till date. The departmental action was initiated only under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the respondent ought to have completed the departmental proceedings within a reasonable time. Further, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.18969 of 2024, seeking a direction to pass the final order in the departmental proceedings. This Court considered the writ petition and, by order dated 16.07.2024, directed the respondent to pass a final order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, even after the lapse of one year from the date of the said order, the respondent has failed to pass any order till date.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported in (2010) 3 MLJ- State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Dept, Chennai -600009 and Another Vs. T.Ranganathan. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder as follows:-

“23. We are conscious of the fact that if there is non-

cooperation of the delinquent officer to comply with the time limit fixed by the Court/Tribunal to complete the enquiry and pass final orders in disciplinary proceedings, the Department cannot be blamed. In such contingency it is for the Department to point out the non-cooperation on the part of the delinquent officer in finalising the proceeding and the hardships faced by the Department in not strictly adhering to the time schedule due to the fault of the delinquent officer or for any valid reason and get appropriate orders seeking extension of time. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that even if the time granted originally to complete the enquiry is over, nothing prevented the Department from filing appropriate application after expiry of the time. It is now well settled in law that application seeking extension of time can be filed and the Court are hav