Madras High Court
C.Albert Xavier vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 June, 2021
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NOS.17476 AND 17477 OF 2008
C.Albert Xavier .. Petitioner
in WP No.17476/2008
V.C.Sakthivel .. Petitioner
in WP No.17477/2008
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Agriculture (AA-2) Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5. .. Respondents 1 & 2
in both WPs'
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
the respondents herein and quash the charge memo issued by the II
respondent herein in No.VCS.3/113137/04 dated 17.04.2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Anand
(in both WPs') for M/s.Anand & Suryas
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj
(in both WPs') Government Advocate (Civil side)
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioners while working as Agricultural Officer and
Production Officer respectively, under the second respondent, were issued
with a charge memo dated 17.04.2008.
2.The gravamen of the charges is that the petitioners, in
connivance with their subordinates and other officials, have indulged in
malpractices in the purchase and distribution of Oil Seeds and created
records to show 50 Metric Tonnes of Oil Seeds were procured and
distributed to the Farmers and thereby misappropriated Government funds
to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs and for executing lack of integrity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
3.In fact, a charge memo in G.O.(3D) No.370 Agriculture (AA-
2) Department, dated 22.11.2007 was issued against one P.Chandrasekaran,
formerly Deputy General Manager / Additional Director of Agriculture (Oil
Seeds) for misappropriating Government funds in connivance with the
subordinate officials to the tune of Rs.2.50 Lakhs and for executing lack of
integrity. It is pertinent to note that the charge memo was issued for the
incident which had taken place during 1995 and 1996.
4.When the matter was challenged by the said
P.Chandrasekaran, this Court in WP No.25971 of 2007, elaborately
discussed the issue and quashed the charge memo by its order dated
28.04.2011.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that
the main allegation against the Deputy General Manager P.Chandrasekaran
itself was quashed for the delayed initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The
petitioners also implicated in the alleged misappropriation along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
P.Chandrasekaran for the same incident. Therefore, the judgment passed by
this Court in the above writ petition will squarely apply to the petitioners
case also and the initiation of proceedings after a period of 13 years of
occurrence vitiates the charge memo. Therefore, they would seek to set
aside the impugned charge memo.
6.Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side)
appearing for the respondents would contend that the imputation leading to
the charge memo given to the petitioners is different from the one which
was issued to P.Chandrasekaran. Secondly, this Court, considering the fact
that the charge memo was issued on the eve of his retirement, quashed the
same. The same principles cannot be applied to the present petitioners as
they are still in service. Therefore, they are not similarly placed and the
judgment of this Court cannot be applied as facts are different.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side.
8.It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
been contemplated for purchase and distribution of Oil Seeds from the
Groundnut farmers at Tiruvannamalai Region during 1995-1996. From a
reading of the charge memo issued to P.Chandrasekaran, it is seen that the
said P.Chandrasekaran, in connivance with his subordinates, who are named
in the charge sheet itself, has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2.50 Lakhs in
procuring 50 Metric Tonnes of Oil Seeds. The petitioners name are also
triggered as Sl.Nos.9 and 2 respectively, in G.O.(3D) No.370, Agriculture
(AA-2) Department, dated 22.11.2007. The charge memo issued to the
petitioners also contains the very same facts, very same incident and very
same quantity. Therefore, there is no dispute that the charge memo was
issued for the very same incident to all the officers and hence, it cannot be
said that it is different from the one issued to the P.Chandrasekaran.
9.Apart from the factum that the charge memo was issued for
the same incident, the delay in issuing the charge memo has to be
considered.
10.Admittedly, the incident had taken place during 1995-1996,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
whereas, the charge memo was issued to the first delinquent on 22.11.2007.
However, the same was issued against the petitioners on 17.04.2008. There
is no explanation for the delay in issuing the charge memo after a period of
11 to 12 years in the case of P.Chandrasekaran. Even after naming the
petitioners, there is no explanation as to why the charge memo was not
issued to the petitioners along with the said P.Chandrasekaran. But, it was
further delayed by one year for the respondents to issue a charge memo to
the petitioners.
11.As considered by this Court in the case of P.Chandrasekaran
in W.P.No.25971 of 2007, the inordinate delay goes unexplained. It is well
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the inordinate delay by itself
vitiates the entire proceedings. The Government servants may not be in a
position to remember the incidents and may not have a memory like
computer. Secondly, it will be very difficult for them to collect evidence to
defend their case and gather witnesses to support them.
12.It is relevant to point out that by efflux of time, several of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
the officers who were working at that point of time could have retired or
died. Thus, the totality of the circumstances will deprive the Government
servants to effectively defend their case because of the delay in initiating the
disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the delay of 13 years in initiation of
proceedings, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its various judgments
as well as the judgments of this Court, in respect of the delinquents, for the
very same incident, vitiates the charge memo issued to the petitioners also.
13.Secondly, there are lot of discrepancies in the charge memo
and it is very vague. In the charge memo issued to P.Chandrasekaran with
respect to procurement of 50 Metric Tonnes of Oil Seeds, it is alleged that
he has misappropriated around Rs.2.50 Lakhs. Whereas, for the same
procurement of 50 Metric Tonnes of Oil Seeds, allegations were made
against the petitioners for misappropriation of Rs.50 Lakhs. The
respondents have not come out with a specific details in the imputation
leading to the charge memo and on the other hand, made allegations at
random.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
14.A perusal of the records shows that the respondents have
come out with a clear statement that the groundnut seeds were purchased @
Rs.11.50 per kg and an incentive of Rs.1.50 per kg was given and thus, the
procurement cost comes around Rs.13/- per kg. It is stated that it was sold
@ Rs.13.50 per kg to the farmers. If that is being taken into account, the
cost of one Metric Tonne of Oil Seeds will come around Rs.13,500/- and the
cost of 50 Metric Tonnes of Oil Seeds will come around Rs.6,75,000/-
whereas, the allegation was that for procurement of 50 Metric Tonnes, there
was a loss of Rs.50 Lakhs. It is not comprehensible from where the
respondents arrived at that figure. There is lack of specific details and it
appears that the respondents have proceeded in a hasty manner on
assumption and without any clear proof as to what was the actual sum
misappropriated by the petitioners. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the
charge memo issued by the respondents suffers from vagueness and
discrepancies. Therefore, I do not find any reason to sustain the charge
memo which was issued after a delay of 13 years, which is bereft of specific
details.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
15.In the result, the charge memo issued to the petitioners in
Proceedings No.VCS.3/113137/04 dated 17.04.2008 by the second
respondent is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
29.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
TK
To
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Agriculture (AA-2) Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NOS.17476 & 17477 OF 2008
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
WP NOS.17476 AND 17477 OF 2008
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
