http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4901 of 2005

PETITIONER:

P.V. MAHADEVAN

RESPONDENT:

M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/2005

BENCH:

RUMA PAL & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the common order passed by the High Court

of Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 297 and 331 of 2001 and Writ Petition No.

7854/2001 filed by the appellant herein. Certain disciplinary actions were

initiated against the appellant herein who was working as Superintending

Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A charge memo was issued on

8.6.2000. The appellant preferred a writ petition to call for the records,

to quash the charge memo by the respondent and to forebear the respondent

from in any manner proceeding with the charge memo against the appellant.

Certain other consequential prayers have also been made in regard to the

disbursement of monetary benefits, etc.

Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

charge memo had been issued in the year 2000 for the irregularity in

issuing a sale deed in 1990 to one Mr. A.N. Beemaiah who was an employee of

the Housing Board and was to superannuate shortly. Mr. Prabhakar also

submitted that though the records were very much available with the

respondent, no action has been taken against the appellant since 1990 for

about 10 years; that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the Housing

Board for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary action

against the appellant. Mr. Prabhakar placed strong reliance on the

following two decisions of this Court in (i) State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Bani Singh and Another, reported in [1990] Supp. SCC 738 and (ii) State of

A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan reported in [1998] 4 SCC 154 and submitted that the

High Court did not even consider any of these judgments, which were

specifically referred in the writ petition.

In the first case [1990] Supp. SCC 738, an O.A. was filed by the officer

concerned against initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings and issue

of charge-sheet on April, 22, 1987 in respect of certain incidents that

happened in 1975-76 when the said officer was posted as Commandant 14th

Battalion, SAF Gwalior. The Tribunal quashed the charge memo and the

departmental enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in

the initiation of the departmental proceedings with reference to an

incident that took place in 1975-76.

The appeal against the said order was filed in this Court on the ground

that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the

ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to

decide the matter on merits.

This Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel. While dismissing

the appeal this Court observed as follows :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

"The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is

said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the

case of the department that they were not aware of the said

irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According

to them even in April 1977 there was doubt the involvement of the

officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were

going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think

that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the

disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no

satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the

charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to

permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage.

In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s

orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal."

In the second case [1998] 4 SCC 154, the respondent was appointed as

Assistant Di