Madras High Court
M.M.Subramanian vs The Principal Secretary on 29 April, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.947 and 3780 of 2020
M.M.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
2.The Managing Director,
TNSTC (Villupuram) Limited,
Villupuram.
3.The Managing Director,
TNSTC (Madurai) Limited,
Bye-Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 010. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned
board resolution passed by the first respondent, in his proceedings in Ref.No.
215/SECY/TNSCT(VPM)/2019, dated 18.12.2019 and the impugned charge memo
issued by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Ka.Ku.No.
104/7104/T7/TNSTC(V)/2019-1, dated 27.12.2019, quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits to the
petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/22
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
[Prayer amended vide order dated 06.03.2020, made in W.M.P.(MD)No.3783 of 2020
in W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020]
For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan
For R1 : Mr.C.Ramesh
Special Government Pleader
For R2 and R3 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumariah
Standing Counsel
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned board
resolution passed by the first respondent, vide his proceedings in Ref.No.
215/SECY/TNSCT(VPM)/2019, dated 18.12.2019 and the impugned charge memo
issued by the second respondent, vide his proceedings in Ka.Ku.No.
104/7104/T7/TNSTC(V)/2019-1, dated 27.12.2019 and consequently direct the
respondents to disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner
2.According to the petitioner, while he was working as Senior Deputy
Manager on deputation in Vellore, a search was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Wing on 03.07.2012. Despite no recovery was made from the petitioner
during the search, a criminal case in Crime No.15 of 2012 was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of I.P.C. against him and three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
others viz., Thulasi, Balakumar and Venkatesan, who were working as
Superintendent, Assistant Manager and Driver, respectively. A charge sheet has also
been laid before the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act Cases/Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, in S.C.No.7 of 2014. While the criminal case was
pending, the second respondent issued a charge memo, dated 21.02.2014, to the
petitioner and two others viz., Vishnu, Deputy Manager, H.R.D., and
M.S.Vijayakumar, Assistant Manager (Personnel), alleging that without following
the procedures contemplated under the Disciplinary Rules, the petitioner and the
above said two officials permitted Thulasi, one of the accused in the criminal case, to
retire from service in spite of a specific instructions given by the superiors not to
allow her to retire from service. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted his
explanation on 01.04.2014 and thereafter, submitted another explanation on
29.04.2014, but no final order has been passed. On the other hand, insofar as the
other delinquents are concerned, final orders were passed on 18.11.2014 against one
Vishnu (Deputy Manager, HRD), by giving warning for his misconduct and another
delinquent viz., M.S.Vijayakumar, Assistant Manager (Personnel), was imposed with
a punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect,
vide order dated 17.03.2015. After conclusion of domestic enquiry, the respondents
permitted them to retire from service on the date of their superannuation, but the
respondents did not pass any order permitting the petitioner to retire from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
3.Further, according to the petitioner, the learned Special Judge under
Prevention of Corruption Act/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, after full-fledged
trial, acquitted the petitioner and three others on 18.10.2016. After his acquittal, on
02.11.2016 the petitioner requested the respondents to drop the departmental
proceedings and permit him to retire from service and pay all the monetary and
retirement benefits. The Board, in its 208th Meeting, passed a resolution on
18.05.2018 to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and three
others. After the said resolution, the General Manager of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Vellore, has issued proceedings, dated
28.08.2018, stating that the said Thulasi, one of the co-accused, is deemed to have
been retired from service on 30.09.2013 and directed the authorities to disburse the
terminal benefits to her. In spite of the said resolution and the proceedings, no order
has been passed. While so, petitioner attained the age of superannuation on
30.06.2015 and he was not permitted to retire from service and was placed under
suspension on the last date of his retirement. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.
(MD)No.133 of 2018 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to
permit him to retire from service with all service/retirement benefits. This Court, by
order dated 11.06.2019, directed the third respondent herein to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 02.11.2016 and pass orders on merits. In
pursuant to the said order of this Court, the third respondent, by letter dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
09.08.2019, informed the petitioner that for taking a decision in the matter, they are
seeking clarification from the first respondent. Subsequently, by another letter dated
30.11.2019, the third respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground
that disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, vide charge memo dated
21.02.2014, is pending. After eight years of search made in the Office of the
petitioner and after four years of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the second
respondent served the charge memo, dated 27.12.2019, to the petitioner on
08.01.2020, alleging that he misused his official position as General Manager and
gave oral instructions to the Assistant Manager and Superintendent to collect a sum
of Rs.12,000/- from 76 reserved Drivers and Conductors as bribe to convert them as
daily wage employees and a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- was kept in the house of one
Venkatesan, Driver and thus, committed dereliction of duty and violated Rule 28(g),
(k), (p), (ac) and (az) of the TNSTC Conduct Rules.
4.The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition challenging the
said charge memo. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
for the alleged misconduct of the year 2012, the second respondent has served a
charge memo, dated 27.12.2019, to the petitioner on 08.01.2020, after lapse of eight
years. The delay of eight years in initiating the departmental proceedings vitiates the
impugned charge memo. Pursuant to the alleged search made on 03.07.2012, a
criminal case was registered against the petitioner and three others. By judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
dated 18.10.2016, the Presiding Officer of the Special Court under Prevention of
Corruption Act [Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore], acquitted the petitioner and three
others holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable
doubt. The said judgment has become final.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the
criminal case was registered against the petitioner and three others and one of the co-
accused viz., Thulasi was permitted to retire from service pending criminal case and
the other two accused in the criminal case were imposed with a minor punishment in
the disciplinary proceedings and they were permitted to retire from service and all
the terminal benefits were also paid to them. The petitioner alone is singled out and
the present disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him. This vitiates the
entire disciplinary proceedings and the same is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that there
is no provision under the Service Rule to the Transport Employer for initiating
disciplinary proceedings after allowing the employee to retire from service, like the
provision contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the retired Government Servant. Hence, the second respondent
cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings against the co-accused, who were allowed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
retire from service. The Board, in its 208th Meeting, dropped the disciplinary
proceedings against all the accused, including the petitioner. The impugned order is
nothing, but discrimination among the delinquent officer standing in the same
footing.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the
criminal case was registered against the petitioner and three others alleging grave
misconduct and the petitioner and three others were acquitted by the learned Special
Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. Now,
the second respondent issued the present charge memo on the ground that the
petitioner has given oral instruction to his subordinates to demand bribe. The charge
in the present charge memo is raised for the first time after eight years. The materials
for issuing the present charge memo were available when the criminal complaint was
given as well as when the first charge memo was issued and therefore, the second
respondent ought to have issued the present charge memo to the petitioner in respect
of all the charges. The second respondent cannot take disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner in issuing the charge memo in respect of same set of alleged
misconduct and subsequently, issue another charge memo, which amounts to malice
in law. The petitioner, on the same set of allegations, was acquitted in the criminal
case and charges framed earlier were dropped as per the resolution of the Board. The
present charge memo amounts to double jeopardy. As per the Service Rules, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
second respondent only has power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner. The second respondent erred in issuing charge memo based on the
direction of the first respondent.
8.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Vs. Jitendra PD.Singh and
another reported in 2001 (10) SCC 530, wherein it has been held as follows:-
''2. ..... What influenced the Court in deciding the matter is that:
''Since as many as three workmen on almost identical charges were
found guilty of misconduct in connection with the same incident,
though in separate proceedings, and one was punished with only
one month's suspension, and the other was ultimately reinstated in
view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by
the High Court and the Supreme Court, it would be denial of
justice to the appellant if he alone is singled out for punishment by
way of dismissal from service.''
3. As the judgment is rested upon this position, whatever other views
may have been expressed in the course of the judgment may be of no
significance. In that view of the matter, we think there is no need to interfere
with the order made by the High Court, that too in a proceeding arising under
Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence we decline to interfere with the order
made by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.''
(ii) S.Murugan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
Corporation (Kum) Ltd., Kumbakonam and another [W.P.(MD)Nos.6228 of 2014,
etc. batch, dated 03.09.2014], wherein at Paragraph No.14, it has been held as
follows:-
''14.The jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to
initiate disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employees came up
for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.46532 and 46533 of 2002,
dated 16 March, 2007 [R.Balraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam Div.I) Ltd. and two others]. This Court considered the service
regulations framed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Order
dated 16 March, 2007 in W.P.Nos.46532 and 46533 of 2002) and clearly held
that there is no specific power to the Corporation to initiate disciplinary
proceedings after the retirement of its employees. This Court held that in
case the employee has committed a loss or damage, it is open to the
Corporation to institute civil proceedings for recovery of the amount,
irrespective of the fact as to whether the person is in service or out of
service. In short, this Court has given a categorical finding that the Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation has no right to initiate disciplinary
proceedings after the retirement of concerned employees.''
(iii) A.Durairaj Vs. The Commissioner, Chinnamanur Municipality,
Chinnamanur, Theni District [W.P.(MD)No.11338 of 2018, dated 01.03.2021],
wherein this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court, has held that when there is an inordinate delay in the departmental action and
such delay caused prejudice to the delinquent, the departmental proceedings itself
cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
9.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent
as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3
separately contended that the second respondent has power to initiate criminal
proceedings as well as departmental proceedings against their employees, including
the petitioner. The second respondent can proceed against the petitioner by initiating
criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings simultaneously. The
second respondent even after acquittal of their employee in the criminal case, can
initiate departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. In the present case, the
impugned charge memo has been issued after acquittal of the petitioner in the
criminal case, which has been registered against him for instructing his subordinates
to demand and receive bribe. The charge memo issued is valid and legal. The power
of the Court to interfere with the charge memo is very limited. The petitioner has not
made out any case for setting aside the charge memo and prayed for dismissal of the
Writ Petition.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent; and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
11.From the above rival submissions and perusal of the documents annexed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
the typed set of papers, the following are the admitted facts:-
(1) A search was conducted in the Office of the petitioner on 03.07.2012 on the
complaint that the petitioner and three others demanded bribe for giving appointment
to the drivers on daily wages.
(2) After the search, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.15 of 2012
under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and Section 120-B of I.P.C. against the petitioner and three others
and was taken on file in S.C.No.7 of 2012, on the file of the Special Court under
Prevention of Corruption Act Cases/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The
petitioner and three others were acquitted by the judgment dated 18.10.2016, as the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the petitioner and three others.
(3) The said judgment has become final, as no appeal was filed either by the
State or by the second respondent.
(4) Meanwhile, pending criminal case, a charge memo dated 21.02.2014,
against the petitioner and two others was issued.
(5) After conclusion of domestic enquiry, minor punishment was imposed on
two other delinquent employees and they were permitted to retire from service.
(6) Even after the conclusion of the domestic enquiry, no order was passed
against the petitioner based on the charge memo, dated 21.02.2014.
(7) The date of suspension of the petitioner was 30.06.2015. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
was not permitted to retire from service and only on the date of retirement, he was
placed under suspension.
(8) The Board, in its 208th Meeting, passed a resolution on 18.05.2018 for
dropping the charges against the petitioner. In spite of such resolution, the charges
framed against the petitioner were not dropped and no order imposing any
punishment on the petitioner was passed. Subsequently, the second respondent
issued the impugned charge memo, dated 27.12.2019.
12.From the above admitted facts, it is clear that search was made on
03.07.2012. The criminal case, which was registered in the year 2012 against the
petitioner and three others, ended in acquittal in the year 2016. It is no doubt true
that the second respondent has power to initiate disciplinary proceedings even after
the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. In the present case, after acquittal,
in the year 2016, the second respondent has not initiated departmental proceedings
immediately or within a reasonable time against the petitioner. Only after four years
of acquittal and eight years of alleged misconduct, the impugned charge memo has
been issued against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that after acquittal, the
petitioner requested the second respondent to permit him to retire from service and
pay the terminal benefits. The petitioner also filed W.P.(MD)No.133 of 2018 before
this Court and this Court directed the second respondent to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
representation of the petitioner. The second respondent did not pass any order within
the time limit fixed by this Court. Only when the petitioner filed Contempt Petition
in the year 2019, the second respondent informed, vide letter dated 30.11.2019, that
the disciplinary proceedings has already been initiated against the petitioner.
13.The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have deprecated the practice
of suspending an employee on the date of retirement and also initiating disciplinary
proceedings after a lapse of considerable time.
14.At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that this Court in the case of
M.Janarthanan v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board reported in
2014(2) CWC 261, has considered the issue of suspension of an employee at the
verge of his retirement and retaining him in service and by the order dated
09.06.2014, has held that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated at least three
months before the date of retirement and disciplinary proceedings must be completed
on war footing and concluded before the date of retirement. The relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as follows:-
“10. Therefore, when the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a similar and
identical issue, has held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law,
then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be also non est in
the eye of law, hence, the same has to be necessarily set aside, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
Court, being bound by the same, has no other option except to interfere
with the impugned orders in view of the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, inasmuch as, in the
present case, the impugned order of suspension is dated 25.10.2011,
which was served on the petitioner on 27.10.2011, followed by the order
of retention passed in G.O.(3D) No. 33, Housing and Urban
Development (UD2-3) Department dated 31.10.2011 and the subsequent
charge memo dated 2.1.2012, which has been issued with an
unexplained and inordinate delay of 14 years for the alleged
commissions and omissions said to have been done during the month of
August, 1997, after the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on
31.10.2011, are necessarily to be held as non est in the eye of law. As a
matter of fact, under similar circumstances, when a challenge was made
by an employee of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board against the charge
memo issued with an inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating the
departmental proceedings against him, without there being any
explanation from the employer for such delay, the Apex Court in P.V.
Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005
(4) CTC 403, has held that allowing the Housing Board to proceed with
the departmental proceedings at the distance of ten years delay would be
prejudicial to the employee. The reasons cited by the Apex Court for
quashing the belated charge memo can be seen from the following
passage:-
“11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the
respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this
distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a
higher Government official under charges of corruption and disputed
integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a
Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the
interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in
the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government
employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an
end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more
on account of the disciplined proceedings. As a matter of fact, the
mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted
disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For
the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating
the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to
suffer.”
11. The above observation of the Apex Court deprecating the
practice of initiating departmental proceedings with a huge delay of ten
years, in my view, can be applied to the present case as well because, in
the case on hand, the impugned charge memo was issued with a huge
and unexplained delay of 14 years for the alleged commissions and
omissions said to have taken place during the month of August, 1997
when the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer, totally contrary
to the G.O.Ms. No. 144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N)
Department dated 8.6.2007 directing the disciplinary authority not to
resort to last minute suspension of the Government employee, namely,
on the date of retirement. In this context, the following directions issued
by the Government to avoid last minute suspension order on the date of
retirement of the Government servant may also be usefully referred to in
the present case:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
“5. The Government direct that the following guidelines be followed
to avoid suspension orders on the date of retirement of the Government
servants in supersession of orders issued in the reference second read
above:
(i) The disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute
suspension of the Government servants (i.e.) on the date of their
retirement. A decision either to allow Government servant to retire from
service or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance
(i.e.) three months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation and
orders issued in the matter and such a decision should not be taken on
the date of retirement, if final orders could not be issued in a pending
disciplinary case against a Government servant retiring from service due
to administrative grounds.
(ii) If an irregularity or an offence committed by the Government
servant comes to notice within a period of three months prior to the date
of retirement, the disciplinary authority shall process the case on war-
footing and take a decision either to permit the Government servant to
retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary case pending
against him or to place him under suspension, based on gravity of the
irregularities committed by him.
(iii)….
(iv) Any failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to issue final
orders three months before the date of retirement of a delinquent officer
will be viewed seriously and it will entail severe action to be initiated
against the officials responsible for dragging on the case to the date of
retirement of Government servant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
(v) Where the delinquency committed by a Government servant is
very grave which warrants imposition of major penalty such as
dismissal or removal from service and if it is not possible to pass final
orders in such departmental proceedings, then it is necessary to suspend
the Government servant from service and not to permit him to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). In
such cases also, the disciplinary authorities have to ensure that the
suspension orders are not issued on the date of retirement of the
Government servants. However, where a Government servant is already
under suspension, orders retaining the services of Government servant
beyond the date of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c)
have to be issued on the date of retirement only.
(vi)…..
(vii) If the disciplinary authority comes to know of the commission
of a delinquency which warrants imposition of major penalty such as
dismissal or removal from service, within three months prior to the date
of retirement of the Government servant and charges could not be
framed before the date of retirement of the Government servant, then
also it is necessary to suspend the Government servant from service and
not to permit him to retire on attaining the age of superannuation under
Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). In such cases also, the disciplinary
authorities may ensure that the suspension orders are not issued on the
date of retirement of the Government servant.
(viii)…”
12. In spite of the above repeated directions and guidelines issued by
the Government in the G.O.Ms. No. 144 dated 8.6.2007, placing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
petitioner under suspension just six days before he reached the age of
superannuation and further retaining him in service for the purpose of
issuing the charge memo after the date of his retirement being contrary
to their own G.O.Ms. No. 144, keeping in mind that there is no
preliminary or discreet enquiry conducted to find out any specific loss
caused to the department, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner with an
unexplained and inordinate delay of 14 years should be held as non est
in the eye of law. For all these reasons, the impugned orders are set
aside and both the writ petitions are allowed. Needless to mention that
the respondents will settle the terminal benefits by treating the petitioner
as having retired from service on 31.10.2011. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1
of 2012 are closed. No costs.”
15.In the present case, the alleged misconduct is of the year 2012. The second
respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo against the
petitioner and two others in the year 2014. In the said charge memo, only one charge
was framed against the petitioner and two others that they permitted one Thulasi, one
of the co-accused in the criminal case, to retire from service in spite of specific
instructions from the superiors. At that time itself, the second respondent was having
all the materials, based on which, the impugned charge memo was issued. The
second respondent ought to have levelled all the charges against the petitioner at the
same time or in any event, ought to have levelled all the charges before retirement of
the petitioner and concluded the domestic enquiry. By conducting piecemeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
domestic enquiry, the second respondent is causing undue hardship to the petitioner.
16.In the judgments referred to above, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court held that delay in initiating and proceeding with the departmental proceedings
prejudicially affects the delinquent employee. The reason for deprecating initiation
of disciplinary proceedings after lapse of considerable time is that the delinquent
employee will not be in position to collect all the documents relied on and produce
witnesses in support of his defence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.
Mahadevan vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005
(4) CTC 403, in Paragraph No.11, which is extracted in Paragraph No.10 of the order
of this Court in M.Janarthanan v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
reported in 2014 (2) CWC 261 [supra], has held that domestic enquiry at a distant
point of time would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the employee
concerned and not only in the interest of employee and also in public interest. In
Paragraph No.5 of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.144, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 8.6.2007, which is extracted in
M.Janarthanan’s case [supra], the Government has ordered initiation of domestic
enquiry at least three months prior to the date of retirement and conduct domestic
enquiry on war footing and conclude the same before the date of retirement of the
employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
17.In the present case, the second respondent has not explained for not
initiating and proceeding the departmental proceedings at the earliest. Further, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the petitioner
alone is singled out and proceeded with domestic enquiry, even though three other
persons, who were also prosecuted levelling same misconduct, were permitted to
retire from service. Further, the second respondent has not passed order in the earlier
domestic enquiry, even though the enquiry was completed long ago and a report was
also filed before him. The second respondent while passing the order and imposing
the minor punishment on the other two co-delinquents, has not passed any order
against the petitioner. Keeping the earlier proceedings pending from the year 2014
till date, initiating disciplinary proceedings in piecemeal only against the petitioner,
vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings now initiated and it is malice in law.
18.For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to
interfere with the charge memo and in view of the order of this Court in
M.Janarthanan v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board reported in 2014
(2) CWC 261, and the judgment and the orders relied on by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the resolution passed by the first respondent, vide his
proceedings in Ref.No.215/SECY/TNSCT(VPM)/2019, dated 18.12.2019 and the
impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent, vide his proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
Ka.Ku.No.104/7104/T7/TNSTC(V)/2019-1, dated 27.12.2019, are set aside.
19.In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index :Yes
Internet :Yes 29.04.2021
smn2
Note :- In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Principal Secretary,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
smn2
W.P.(MD)No.1199 of 2020
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
