Madras High Court
T.Alaguvelu vs The Director Of Agriculture on 26 July, 2021
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :26.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
T.Alaguvelu .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Peruinthitta Valagam,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the proceedings of the Director of Agriculture, Chennai, the first
respondent herein made in its Letter number Ka.Pa.Nee.1/35874/2015 dated
09.09.2015 and the proceedings number Ka.Pa.Nee.1/22398/12 dated
14.02.2014 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to confer
special grade to the petitioner on completion of 20 years with effect from
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
31.07.2002 with all pay and allowances, service and monetary benefits
accrued thereon and also revise the retiral and pensionary benefits based on
such advancement to special grade and consequently disburse all the arrears
within a short date that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajkumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar,
Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. Heard Mr.K.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner herein, while serving as an Assistant Agricultural
Officer, Vanur, Thiruchittrambalam, Villupuram, during the year 1988 – 89,
was levelled with charges under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(discipline and appeal) Rules, alleging that there were some irregularities, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
the matter of distributing the subsidy to the farmers while implementing the
ICDP Scheme during the year 1988 and 1989. Pursuant to the petitioner's
explanation, an enquiry came to be conducted for the year 2000 and after
about 4 years of the pendency of the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer,
an Enquiry Report was filed on 28.06.2004 and the petitioner herein had
admitted to the charges levelled against him. Thereafter on 27.12.2006, the
Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment
with cumulative effect for a period of 3 years and for recovery of the loss of
Rs.3,078/-.
4. The learned counsel predominantly raised two grounds,
attacking the order of punishment. Firstly, he would submit that the incident
for which charges were levelled against the petitioner are only certain
irregularities, which arises during the course of the ordinary duties of a
Government Officer and that such an incident was also taken cognizance by
way of framing of charges, after an inordinate delay of eight years, which
delay has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Furthermore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
departmental proceedings, were kept pending for almost 10 years and the
punishment was imposed ultimately on 27.12.2006 only. In view of the
delay in concluding the proceedings also, the punishment cannot be
sustained.
5. In service jurisprudence, the delay in framing of charges, as
well as the delay in concluding the departmental proceedings have been
held to be a ground for interference, in various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court. In all these decisions, the view taken
was that when such delay is inordinate and not due to the latches on the part
of the employee and when such inordinate delay causes prejudice to the
employee, the consequential proceedings or the punishment, as the case may
be, could be interfered with.
6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kootha
Pillai vs. Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Chennai and others
in W.P.No.15231 of 2006, dated 05.11.2008, had an occasion to refer to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
some of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as
this Court, and had ratified the aforesaid proposition. The relevant portion
of the order of this Court, reads as under:
“44. The next contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the subject matter of the proposed
disciplinary action, as stated in the impugned order, relate to
incidents, which took place more than 18 years ago. The
following judgments are pressed into service for the preposition
that inordinate delay, not explained satisfactorily would cause
serious prejudice and therefore, there cannot be any disciplinary
action, after retirement.
45. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and
another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, the Supreme Court
had come down heavily against the latches on the part of the
employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding
out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate
delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry
to proceed further.
46. In State of A.P., v. N.Radhakrishnan reported in
1998 (4) SCC 154, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as
follows:
"Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to
take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer
unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or
when there is proper explanation for the delay in
conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the
Court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
47. In Union of India v. CAT reported in 2005 (2) CTC
169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally
unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in
concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding
with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would
come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any
further.............."
48. In P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing
Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, this Court after referring to
various decisions, held that,
"The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a
government employee should, therefore be avoided not
only in the interest of the government employee but in
public interests 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
disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
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 department in the procedure for initiating the
disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be
made to suffer. 15. We therefore, have no hesitation to
quash the charge issued against the appellant. The
appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all
the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral
benefits shall be disbursed within three months from
this date. No cost."
49. In the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Chepauk v. N.Sivasamy reported in 2005 (5)
CTC 451, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"Though the alleged lapse occurred in the year 1995
and certain charges related to the period 1993-94,
the charge memo was issued on 15.07.1997 and
served on 23.07.1997, just 7 days before the date of
retirement. The contention of the appellant that only
with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish,
the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored.We
have already pointed out that though the applicant
failed Original Application No.6284/97, challenging
the charge memo, dated 15.07.1997, admittedly, no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
stay was granted. Despite the above fact that the
department had not proceeded with the disciplinary
proceedings, there is an inordinate and unexplained
delay on the part of the department. According to the
applicant, he is 67 years of age as on the date and
had rendered 38 years of service in the department.
He had undergone sufferings from mental worry,
agony, anguish and hardship for all these years. We
are satisfied that there is no need to pursue the
charge memo, dated 15.07.1997."
50. In yet another decision in R.Tirupathy and others
v. the District Collector, Madurai District and others reported in
2006 (2) CTC 574, this Court was pleased to quash the charge
memo, dated 02.02.2005 on the ground that the charges relate to
purchase of uniforms during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 and
the inordinate delay on the part of the department in issuing a
charge memo was not properly explained.
51. The Supreme Court in M.V.Bijlani v. Union of
India and other reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88, quashed the order
of removal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority on
various grounds particularly, on the ground that initiation of
disciplinary proceedings after six years and continuance thereof,
for a period of seven years prejudiced the delinquent officer.
52. In M.Elangovan v. The Trichy District Central Co-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
operative Bank Ltd., reported in 2006 (2) CTC 635, this Court,
while quashing the second show cause notice on the ground of
inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and completing
the disciplinary proceedings, allowed the Writ Petitions holding
that the petitioners therein were entitled to all the benefits in
accordance with law. The same view has been expressed by this
Court in yet another decision in Parameswaran v. State ofTamil
Nadu reported in 2006 (1) CTC 476.
7. The second ground raised was that, a mere pendency of
departmental proceedings under Rule 17 (b), cannot be an impediment for
conferment of special grade, for which purpose, he relied on the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of R.Kasi vs. Director of Co-operative
Audit, passed in W.A.No.1010 of 2007, dated 04.01.2010.
8. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents, however
objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and stated that the petitioner was involved in irregularities in
implementation of the ICDP Scheme and therefore, the respondents have
thought it fit to frame charges under Rule 17 (b). It is his submission that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
when the departmental proceedings under Rule 17 (b) are pending, the
petitioner's candidature for the purpose of conferring Special Grade, is
impermissible and therefore, the petitioner was not considered for
conferment of Special Grade.
9. In this regard, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
R.Kasi (supra), had held that the pendency of the proceedings, in the
charges framed, in the Rule 17 (b), will not be an impediment for conferring
Special Grade. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“5. The only reason for not awarding the selection
grade to the appellant with effect from 20.05.1990 in the cadre
of the co-operative Sub Registrar (Co-operative Audit Officer)
is that there were enquiry proceedings pending in respect of
charges 17(a) and 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules against the
appellant and as per G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.1993, the
persons against whom, specific charges under Rule 17 (b) were
framed, would be deferred promotion till the enquiry
proceedings come to end. According to the respondent, since
the enquiry proceedings in respect of the charges under Rule
17(b) ended in imposing punishment of stoppage of increments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
for a period of 3 months which was subsisting till 31.12.1990
and therefore, the appellant was awarded special grade with
effect from 01.01.1999. We are unable to agree this view of the
respondent inasmuch as even as per G.O.Ms.No.368, dated
18.10.1993, pendency of enquiry proceedings under Rule 17(a)
is not a bar for promotion applicable to selection grade and
further, though the appellant was inflicted with punishment for
the charges under Rule 17(b), it is to be noted that the charges
are not serious and such punishment is only stoppage of
increments for three months without cumulative effect.
Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, based on this, the appellant
cannot be denied promotion. In fact, the learned Single Judge
has categorically held that the appellant is entitled to the
selection grade from the year 1989, however, dismissed the
writ petition only on the ground of latches. It is to be noted that
the respondent has issued proceedings, dated 08.08.2000
awarding the special grade to the appellant with effect from
01.01.1999, i.e. after retirement of the appellant. It appears
that the claim for grant of selection grade has been agitated by
the appellant for the long time and even after retirement also.
Therefore, merely on the ground of latches, the claim of the
appellant cannot be rejected.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
10. The aforesaid extract is self-explanatory. In view of the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Divison Bench, in the aforesaid case that the
pendency of the Departmental proceedings, framed under Rule 17 (b), will
not be an impediment for conferment of Special Grade, the respondents may
not be justified in considering the petitioner's case for the said purpose.
11. It is seen that the petitioner herein, had earlier sought for
conferment of Special Grade, with effect from 31.07.2002, which came to
be rejected on 14.02.2001 by the respondents herein and the Revision filed
against the same was also rejected by the first respondent, which two orders
are under challenge in the present writ petition.
12. Insofar as arrears of the salaries, after re-fixation for such
conferment of a special Grade is concerned, this Court has also taken note
of the fact that the petitioner's right to be conferred with Special Grade
accrued as early as on 31.07.2002 itself, with effect from the date on which
he had completed his 20 years of service. Thereafter, when the punishment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
was imposed on the petitioner in the year 2006 also, the petitioner had not
chosen to challenge the decision of the respondents in not conferring with
the Special Grade with effect from 31.07.2002. It is claimed that the
petitioner had been making representations to the Government in this regard
and since there was no proper response, they did not challenge the denial of
conferment of Special Grade, between 2002 to 14.02.2014.
13. This Court does not appreciate the latches on the part of the
respondents, in having waited all these years for approaching this Court. As
a matter of fact, the petitioner was 65 years old, when he had chosen to file
the writ petition and even after 7 years from the date to his retirement, he
had not exercised his right. Hence, I am of the view that instead of ordering
disbursement of the entire arrears of the re-fixed salary, pursuant to
conferment of Special Grade, the same can be reduced to 50% from the date
of conferment of Special Grade, till the date of his retirement.
14. For all the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
14.02.2014, is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the
respondents to disburse 50% of the arrears of salary, revised on the basis of
conferment of Special Grade with effect from 31.07.2002, till the date of his
superannuation, together with arrears of Revised Pension. The respondents
shall endeavour to pass appropriate orders, in the line of the directions of
these Court, atleast within a period of 6 weeks, from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
15. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.07.2021
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Pns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
To
1.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Peruinthitta Valagam,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Pns
W.P.No.16167 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.13952 of 2016
26.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
