Madras High Court
P.Muthuvel vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7152 of 2020
P.Muthuvel ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the
order dated 03.11.2020 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13620 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,
Special Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, aggrieved over the
order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the appellant was permitted to retire
from service, but, the disciplinary proceedings were directed to continue by
invoking Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pensions Rules 1978 and consequently,
forwarded the file to the Higher Authorities for taking action.
2. The charge against the appellant is with respect to the unauthorized
absent. Incidentally, the appellant was suspended and not allowed to retire from
service. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in
W.P.(MD)No.6720 of 2011 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, after
analysing the scope and ambit of Rule 56(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Government
Servants Fundamental Rules and on considering the relevant materials, quashed
the order of suspension and the order not permitting the appellant to retire from
service. A finding has also been given with respect to the ineligibility of the
appellant to attend the work due to his health condition and the charge memo
dated 26.05.2011, pursuant to which, two orders, namely, the order of suspension
and the order not permitting the appellant to retire from service, were passed,
which was too trivial and passed at the verge of his retirement. Though the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
learned Single Judge made certain observations on merits, which are on the
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, which, in turn, would start with the
charge memo, but, the same has not been quashed, perhaps, by inadvertence.
3. The aforesaid order has become final inter se party. Thereafter, the
impugned orders, which sought to be assailed before us, were passed. The
respondents invoked Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pensions Rules and accordingly,
proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. The appellant once again laid a
challenge before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed accordingly and
hence, the present appeal.
4. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
one has to see the reasoning of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
6720 of 2011 dated 15.06.2012. The non-inclusion of the charge memo in the
portion of the order is only an oversight mistake. The reasonings adopted for
quashing the suspension order and the order not permitting the appellant to retire
from service are trivial on the very initiation of the proceedings, namely, the
issuance of a charge memo. One has to understand the tenor of the order passed.
Therefore, the subsequent order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. This
aspect has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge on an earlier
occasion in W.P.(MD)No.6720 of 2011 does not refer to the charge memo.
Therefore, it was accordingly complied with. There is no bar in law for
proceeding further.
6. By way of a reply, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant, submitted that even assuming that it is so, Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, cannot be applied in a mechanical way. The Authority concerned,
who invokes the said Rule, will have to come to a conclusion that the allegations
are grave and serious. This aspect has not been done, while invoking the said
provision and by ignoring the order of the Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
8. We do find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.6720 of
2011 binds the parties and a specific finding has been given on merits.
Incidentally, it has been stated that the allegation made in the charge memo itself
is very trivial and therefore, the respondents were justified in initiating the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
disciplinary proceedings at the verge of retirement of the appellant. Certainly, it
is an oversight at the hands of the learned Single Judge as then he is not
including the charge memo. At the time of quashing the other two proceedings,
perhaps, the appellant could have brought to the notice of this Court at the
relevant point of time. Be that as it may, while there is a non-compliance of Rule
9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which, in fact, is not required at all, in view
of the specific findings given by the learned Single Judge, the very continuation
of the disciplinary proceedings thereafter, would be vitiated.
9. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the
order of the learned Single Judge is required interference and this aspect has not
gone into. The appellant has reached the age of superannuation nearly a decade
ago. He is entitled for the benefit of the order dated 15.06.2012 which was
construed in delinquent way by the respondents. In such view of the matter, we
have no hesitation in holding that the appellant is entitled to succeed, by setting
aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the order of the learned
Single Judge stands set aside. The terminal and pensionary benefits of the
appellant will have to be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
06.01.2021
ogy
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ogy
W.A.(MD)No.1253 of 2020
06.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
