Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs N. Sivalingam on 5 March, 2021
WA No. 2715 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05-03-2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subbiah
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Writ Appeal No. 2715 of 2019
--
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Transport-II) Department
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009
2. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings
5/1842-A, Regulated Market Complex
Tiruchi Highway, Ramanathapuram
Coimbatore - 601 405 .. Appellants
Versus
N. Sivalingam .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated
27.03.2018 passed in WP No. 37073 of 2016 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr. Vijay Narayan, Advocate General
assisted by Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr. C. Selvaraju, Senior Advocate
for Mr. A. Ganesan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SUBBIAH, J
This appeal is filed as against the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
learned single Judge, allowing the WP No. 37073 of 2016 filed by the
WA No. 2715 of 2019
respondent herein and by quashing the impugned charge memo in C. No.
515/2008/A1 dated 30.07.2018 in TDP Case No.46 of 2008 passed by the
second appellant herein. After allowing the writ petition, a consequential
direction was given by the learned single Judge, directing the appellants to
revoke the order of suspension passed against the respondent.
2. The case of the respondent before the Writ Court is that he was
appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II through Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission in Transport Department on 01.11.1976. He was
promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I on 22.08.1983, then as Regional
Transport Officer on 28.05.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy
Transport Commissioner on 10.12.2003. When the respondent was working as
Deputy Transport Commissioner, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Coimbatore framed charges against him on 30.07.2008 in T.D.P. Case No. 46
of 2008. The respondent was also placed under suspension on 30.07.2008.
Based on the charges framed against the petitioner, the first appellant placed
the respondent under suspension on 28.10.2008, just 3 days prior to his
retirement on 31.10.2008, due to pendency of charges. On 31.10.2008, the
first appellant passed another order not permitting the respondent to retire
from service on superannuation and retaining him in service until the final
orders are passed in the disciplinary proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
3. During the inquiry disciplinary proceedings, the respondent
submitted his written statement of defence to the Tribunal on 26.11.2008. The
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings submitted the enquiry report to the first
appellant on 31.12.2008. The first appellant communicated a copy of the
enquiry report to the respondent on 11.01.2010 nearly after a lapse of more
than one year from the date of receipt of the report of the Tribunal. The
respondent submitted his further representation on the enquiry report to the
first appellant on 15.05.2010. Since the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner in the year 2008 has not been concluded by passing final
orders for more than five years, the respondent filed WP No. 16626 of 2015
before this Court specifically on the ground of delay in concluding the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The learned single Judge, by
order dated 12.06.2015, directed the first appellant herein to pass final orders
in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent within a period
of two months. Even thereafter, the first appellant did not pass final order.
First Appellant also did not file any application seeking extension of time to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated by this Court
in the order dated 12.06.2015 in WP No. 16626 of 2015. Since there are no
valid reasons mentioned by the first appellant for keeping the disciplinary
proceedings pending for more than six years, especially beyond the time
stipulated by this Court, he has filed the present writ petition to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
impugned charge memo dated 30.07.2008 in TDP Case No. 46 of 2008 and
consequently direct the appellants to settle the pensionary benefits after
revoking his suspension.
4. The learned single Judge observed that inspite of two months time
granted by this Court in WP No. 16626 of 2015, the first appellant did not pass
final order or chosen to file any application seeking extension of time to
comply with the directions of this Court in the aforesaid WP No. 16626 of
2015. Therefore on the ground of delay in passing final orders, the learned
single Judge has quashed the charge memo and allowed the writ petition filed
by the respondent herein.
5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants
submitted that the charge against the respondent is that he and his wife have
amazed wealth disproportionate to known source of income. The enquiry
unfolded that the respondent and his wealth were in possession of assets to the
tune of Rs.5,38,559.54. The Tribunal, after conducting enquiry in TDP Case
No. 46 of 2008, held that the charge against the respondent are proved. Based
on the report submitted by the Tribunal, the first appellant could not pass final
orders inasmuch as there are three other disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the respondent were pending by then.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
6. According to the learned Advocate General, the respondent was
also facing disciplinary proceedings in TDP Case No. 47 of 2008 before the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore on the allegation that
during the course of his employment from 12.04.1999 to 15.01.2002 he has
allotted advance registration number without following the procedures laid
down in that regard. Furthermore, yet another case in TDP Case No. 53 of
2008 was registered against the respondent on the allegation that he started a
petrol bunk in the name of his sister-in-law without getting prior permission
from the Government. Another case in TDP Case No. 110 of 2008 was also
pending before the Tribunal against the respondent for the allegation that
when he was working as Regional Transport Officer, Tirupur during
12.04.1999 to 15.01.2002, he failed to follow the guidelines with respect to
allotment of advance registration number. The learned single Judge, without
considering the fact that the respondent is facing atleast three other
disciplinary proceedings in TDP Case Nos. 47 of 2008, 53 of 2008 and 110 of
2008, has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. When the
respondent is facing three other departmental proceedings as aforesaid, the
first appellant could not pass final orders only based on the conclusion of the
inquiry proceedings in TDP Case No. 46 of 2008, which is the subject matter
of the writ petition. Since other disciplinary proceedings are pending, the first
appellant is not in a position to pass any order. Further, an order removing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
respondent from service was passed in the other connected disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the respondent. In any event, the learned
Advocate General only submitted that if few weeks time is granted, the first
appellant will be in a position to pass final orders in the disciplinary
proceedings initiated and finalised against the respondent in TDP Case No.
467 of 2008, which is the subject matter of this appeal.
7. On the above contention, the learned Senior counsel for the
respondent submitted there is enormous delay in conducting the disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent, by which, he was subjected to acute
mental disturbance and discomfort. The disciplinary cases were initiated
against the respondent in the year 2008, but even after lapse of 13 years, final
order was not passed in some cases. The learned single Judge rightly quashed
the disciplinary proceedings as against the respondent in TDP Case No. 46 of
2008 on the ground of delay, over which, interference of this Court is not
warranted.
8. We have heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the
appellants and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, there
are four disciplinary cases registered against the respondent herein in TDP
Case Nos. 46, 47, 53 and 110. When the other connected cases are pending at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
various stages, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondent on the ground of delay and laches in passing
final orders in TDP Case No. 46 of 2008. In any event, in one of the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, final order was
passed by the first appellant herein removing the respondent from service.
9. In view of the above fact that the respondent was imposed with
major punishment of removal from service in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be
sustained. The first appellant is directed to pass final orders in the charge
memo issued to the respondent,which is the subject matter of this writ appeal,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the Order dated 27.03.2018 passed in WP No. 37073
of 2016 is set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
(R.P.S.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
05-03-2021
rsh
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Transport-II) Department
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009
2. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings
5/1842-A, Regulated Market Complex
Tiruchi Highway, Ramanathapuram
Coimbatore - 601 405
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No. 2715 of 2019
R. Subbiah, J
and
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J
rsh
W.A. No. 2715 of 2019
05-03-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
