Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahendran on 28 April, 2021
WA.No.936/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
WA.No.936/2021 & CMP.No.5514/2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. .. Appellants /
RR 1 to 3 in WP
Versus
S.Mahendran .. Respondent / Writ
Petitioner
Prayer:- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 11.04.2019 made in WP.No.24611/2009.
1
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
For Appellants : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
for M/s.C.S.Associates
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]
(1) By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal and is
disposed of by this judgment.
(2) Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent/writ petitioner.
(3) The official respondents in WP.No.24611/2009 are the appellants
herein.
(4) The respondent/writ petitioner filed the said writ petition praying for
issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order of the 1st appellant/1st respondent daed
09.09.2009, in G.O.[3D] No.134, Agriculture Department and to
quash the same with a consequential direction, directing the official
respondents to give upgraded promotion to him as Agricultural Officer
from the date on which his juniors were given and conferred with all
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
consequential benefits. The writ petition, after contest, came to be
allowed vide impugned order dated 11.04.2019 and making a
challenge to the same, the present writ appeal is preferred.
(5) The facts leading to the present round of litigation have been narrated
in detail and in extenso in the impugned order which is the subject
matter of challenge in this writ appeal and for the sake of brevity, it is
not necessary to restate the facts once again except to cull out the
relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal.
(6) The respondent/writ petitioner while working as a Field
Demonstration Officer in Oil Seeds in the office of the Assistant
Director of Agriculture, was visited with disciplinary proceedings in
the form of Charge Memo dated 27.08.1996 for which, he has also
submitted his written statement / defence on 08.08.1997. The
Enquiry Officer, after enquiry, has concluded that all charges have not
been proved vide his Report dated 06.02.1998. However, despite
that, upgraded promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer, has not
been given to the respondent/writ petitioner and the official
respondents, vide impugned Government Order in G.O.[3D] No.134
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
dated 09.09.2009. had awarded punishment of stoppage of increment
for three years without cumulative effect.
(7) Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the appellants would submit that in the light of the seriousness of the
charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner and due to
administrative reasons, there was some delay in issuing the show
cause notice as to the disagreement of the findings reached by the
Enquiry Officer and in the light of the serious delinquency on the part
of the respondent/writ petitioner, the said delay can be considered and
the said aspect aspect has been completely overlooked while allowing
the writ petition and hence, prays for interference.
(8) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge has taken note
of the factual aspects and found that the earlier orders passed by this
Court in WP.Nos.20083/2007 and 29627/2007 dated 12.06.2007 and
20.10.2008 respectively, have not been complied with in letter and
spirit and having found that there was unreasonable delay in issuing
show cause notice as to the disagreement with regard to the findings
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
rendered by the Enquiry Officer and has rightly reached the
conclusion to allow the writ petition and hence, prays for dismissal of
this writ appeal.
(9) This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials placed before it.
(10) Though the Enquiry Officer has given his findings as early as on
06.02.1998 holding that the charges have not been proved against the
respondent/writ petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, having
disagreed with the said findings, has issued the show cause notice
only on 14.03.2007, and the said delay of nine years, has not been
explained. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the
respondent/writ petitioner filed WP.No.20083/20007 challenging the
charge memo on the ground that the official respondents did not pass
final orders and vide order dated 12.06.2007, this Court directed the
authorities to pass final orders within a period of two months and
despite that, no orders have been passed. Therefore, the
respondent/writ petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by
filing yet another writ petition in WP.No.29627/2007 making the very
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
same prayer and once again, this Court, vide order dated 20.10.2008,
has directed the concerned official respondents to pass final orders on
the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four weeks and the
said order has been complied with nearly after one year in the form of
G.O.[3D] No.134 of Agriculture Department dated 09.09.2009.
(11) The appellants/official respondents not even moved for extension of
time and on their sweet will and pleasure, chose to pass final orders
nearly after one year from the date of passing of the order in
WP.No.28627/2007 dated 20.10.2008. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, there is absolutely
no plausible explanation as to the delay between the date of the
Enquiry Report dated 06.02.1998, in and by which, the charges have
not been proved and the show cause notice dated 14.03.2007 issued
by the Disciplinary Authority as to the disagreement on the said
findings and that apart, the orders passed in WP.Nos.20083 and
29627/2007 have not been complied with on time.
(12) It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the order which is the
subject matter of challenge passed in WP.No.24611/2009, is also not
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
complied with on the pretext of the filing of the writ appeal. In the
considered opinion of the Court, in the light of the reasons assigned
above, there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record
in the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge and finds no
merits in the writ appeal.
(13) In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage
itself, confirming the order dated 11.04.2019 made in
WP.No.24611/2009. The official respondents/appellants are directed
to comply with the order dated 11.04.2019, as confirmed in this writ
appeal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment / uploading of the judgment in the website and
communicate the decision taken, to the respondent/writ petitioner. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[MSNJ] [PRMJ]
28.04.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Agriculture Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.936/2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.,
AP
WA.No.936/2021
28.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
