BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/10/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition (MD)No.5269 of 2007 E.Chittaranjan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government and Agricultural Production Commissioner, St.George Fort, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Agricultural Department, Chepauk, Chennai-9. 3.The Commissioner of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Chepauk, Chennai-9. .. Respondents Prayer Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings gxe(vtp)1-192735/98 dated 13.01.2002 and consequential charge memo issued by the third respondent in his proceedings M1-16937-2003 dated 11.10.2003 and consequential suspension order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings G.O(3D) No.113 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and consequential order of not permitting the petitioner retire from service in his proceedings G.O(3D) No.114 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and quash the same as illegal and consequentily to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner retire from service with monetary benefits. !For Petitioner ...Mr.M.Ajmal Khan ^For Respondents...Mr.D.Sasikumar Govt.Advoate. :ORDER
The petitioner E.Chittaranjan has filed the present writ petition seeking
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings
gxe(vtp)1-192735/98 dated 13.01.2002 and consequential charge memo issued by the
third respondent in his proceedings M1-16937-2003 dated 11.10.2003 and
consequential suspension order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings
G.O(3D) No.113 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and consequential
order of not permitting the petitioner to retire from service in his proceedings
G.O(3D) No.114 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and quash the
same as illegal and consequentily to direct the first respondent to permit the
petitioner retire from service with monetary benefits.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second
respondent in his proceedings dated 13.01.2002, issued the impugned charge memo
against the petitioner in respect of alleged delinquency committed by the
petitioner during 1983-84 and 1986-87 and subsequently, the Enquiry Officer held
the enquiry on 19.07.2002 and finally submitted a report on 07.08.2002, but,
even after the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2004,
till date the disciplinary authority has not passed any final order on the
report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He further submitted that the
petitioner has to face another disciplinary proceedings by issuing the second
charge memo dated 11.10.2003 and in the second charge memo, though there are
four charges only, after holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the
conclusion that the charge memos 1 to 3 have to be dropped and after dropping
the charge memos 1 to 3 finding him guilty in respect of charge memo No.4. In
his report, the Enquiry Officer submitted a final report on 19.01.2004 and till
date the disciplinary authority has not passed a final order on the report filed
by the Enquiry Officer. Though the petitioner reached the superannuation on
31.05.2004, in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings, he was not allowed
to receive all the pensionary benefits and as a result of it and in view of the
abnormal delay in submission of final decision by the disciplinary authority,
the present writ petition came to be filed for quashing the entire proceedings.
3.In respect of the charge memo dated 13.01.2002 and 11.10.2003, he
relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex court in Ranjeet Singh -vs-
State of Haryana and Others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781 followed by another
judgment of this Court in R.Rajasekar -Vs- Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Department, Chennai and others reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 108. In
both judgments, it has been held that if there is an abnormal delay in
completing enquiry and if the unexplained delay causes serious prejudice to the
employees concerned, such enquiry will have to be quashed.
4.In the case of Ranjeet Singh -vs- State of Haryana and Others reported
in 2008 (3) CTC 781, the Honourable Supreme Court came to deal with the
unexplained delay of nine years after coming to the conclusion that due to the
abnormal delay of nine years, the entire enquiry was vitiated and hence declared
that order of punishment is null and void. But, in the present case, the
enquiry was held only in the year 2002 and the enquiry in first charge memo held
on 19.07.2002 and on completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a
report on 07.08.2002, within two years from the date of submission of enquiry
report the petitioner reached the superannuation on 31.05.2004. In respect of
second charge memo dated 11.10.2003, the enquiry report was finally submitted on
19.01.2004 within four months and thereafter, the petitioner reached the
superannuation on 31.05.2004. In view of the delay in not filing the final
report on time by the disciplinary authority, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the above mentioned two judgments to quash the charge
memo dated 13.01.2002 and 11.10.2003, suspension order dated 31.05.2004 another
order dated 31.05.2004 not permitting him to retire.
5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the
petitioner has not only suffered the above mentioned charge memos namely
13.01.2002 and 11.10.2003 and he has also caused heavy loss of Rs.59,60,000/- to
the respondent Department, when the Audit objections indicated that the
petitioner was found responsible for having caused a huge loss of Rs.59,60,000/-
to the Department and the Vigilance enquiry has also been ordered, for which the
report could not be secured. In view of the several procedures followed for
completion of the vigilance enquiry, the disciplinary authority was not able to
pass final order on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer.
6.When the petitioner was working as Agricultural Officer, Puthalam
Coconut Nursery, Kanyakumari District in the Agriculture Department, the 2nd
respondent/the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, has initiated disciplinary
action under Rule 17(b) in Pa.O.Na.(AV1)192735/98, dated 23.07.2002 for not
maintaining the records properly and also for having caused a loss of
Rs.13,139/- to the Government as pointed out in the audit report. Yet again,
the petitioner, while he was serving in the Horticulture Department as Assistant
Director of Horticulture, Central Horticulture Training Centre, Kudumianmalai,
was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for dereliction of duty. Apart from these two
charge memos, there was one more vigilance case pending against him. Fourthly,
there were pending audit recoveries against the petitioner to the tune of
Rs.59.60 lakhs in Horticulture department.
7.In view of the above mentioned pending charges, as there was no final
orders passed on the above mentioned two charges, he was not permitted to retire
from Government service on the date of reaching age of superannuation on
31.05.2004. Therefore, he was kept under suspension by the 1st respondent.
8.Further, it is also relevant to note that when the petitioner was
serving as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kodaikanal, he went on medical
leave frequently and thus, delayed achievement of the scheme targets and also he
had not settled the vouchers to the 3rd respondent in time and as a result, no
bills were settled by the Treasury. For these lapses, he was imposed with a
punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect.
This is nothing to do with the present disciplinary proceedings, as the
allegations are entirely different from the previous incidents.
9.Besides, when Mr.Tamilmani, another Horticulture Officer, was dismissed
from service on 02.07.2003 due to the involvement in the strike, he was
reinstated into service by the petitioner without any orders received from the
appointing authority and as he had no authority to appoint or reinstate any
dismissed officer into service and thereby, having caused misconduct, he was
placed under suspension on the verge of retirement.
10.Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
there is no question on imposing double jeopardy punishment against the
petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has given raise to several complaints
one after another. For the misconduct committed by the petitioner, while he was
working as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kodaikanal, he was imposed with a
punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect,
whereas the charges for absenteeism and non stayal at headquarter, separate
charge memos were issued. Therefore, there is no question of violation of
Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Finally, for two separate
disciplinary proceedings, including the pending audit report to the tune of
Rs.59.60 lakhs against the petitioner, he was not permitted to retire from
service on attaining the age of superannuation.
11.The learned Government Advocate has also brought to the notice of this
Court, a communication written by the Department to the Government Advocate
Office wherein, the Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Chepauk,
Chennai-5, has conveyed a report that the Department was able to realise only
Rs.17,99,119/- out of Rs.41,60,881/- from the petitioner.
12.In this view of the matter, though the disciplinary authority, in my
view should have passed final order on the basis of two reports submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, in view of the further proceedings of vigilance case pending,
this Court cannot quash the proceedings. However, though the vigilance case is
altogether a separate case, this Court directs the respondents to pass final
order on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer within a
period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.After seeing that the vigilance case is also pending against the
petitioner, the department is unable to recover the huge sum of Rs.41,60,881/.
Hence this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not
inclined to show indulgence to the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings.
14.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
gsr
To
1.The Secretary to the Government
and Agricultural Production Commissioner,
St.George Fort,
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Agricultural Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai-9.
3.The Commissioner of Horticulture,
Department of Horticulture,
Chepauk,
Chennai-9.