Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Kuppusamy on 21 October, 2021
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3. The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal. ... Appellants
vs.
R.Kuppusamy ...Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 22.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19042 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaravel
for Mr.M.Ravi
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
Respondents 1 and 3 in the Writ Petition have filed the present Writ
Appeal challenging the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned Single
Judge allowing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.19042 of 2010.
2. The Respondent in the Writ Appeal has filed W.P.No.19042 of
2010 challenging the order of punishment imposed upon him and seeking a
prayer of mandamus to include his name in the panel for promotion to the
post of Deputy Collector for the year 2009-2010.
3. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioner that, he was working as
a Typist in the Revenue Department from the year 1982 and thereafter, he
was promoted as Assistant in the year 1995; he was further promoted as
Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2001 and as Tahsildar from 01.08.2007. While
he was working as Tahsildar, he was issued with a Charge Memo on
03.11.2007 on certain allegations as regards false entires in the Copy
Application Register with regard to the issuance of Death Certificate.
Enquiry was conducted and punishment of 'stoppage of increment for a
period of one year and six months without cumulative effect' was imposed
upon the Writ Petitioner, on 03.11.2007. The Appeal filed by the Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
Petitioner was also dismissed on 12.01.2009 and the said order was
challenged before this Court in the Writ Petition.
4. The Writ Petition was filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the
Charge Memo has been issued in the year 2007 for an incident that has taken
place in the year 1993 and the issue of delay in issuing the Charge Memo was
raised. The second ground on which the Writ Petition was filed is that, the
superior Officer of the Writ Petitioner who was arrayed as a co-delinquent in
respect of the same proceedings, has been let off vide proceedings dated
30.06.2003 and in fact, he was permitted to retire without initiation of any
disciplinary proceedings.
5. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated
22.01.2020, has allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that, the Writ
Petitioner, who is a subordinate, has been proceeded against. On the other
hand, his superior Officer, who has played a much greater role in the
delinquency, has been permitted to retire without even reserving any right to
continue the proceedings under the Pension Rules.
6. The learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh vs. State of Haryana
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 518 (SC), wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court
was pleased to point out that, co-delinquents should be treated equally and
there cannot be any discrimination; and if there is any discrimination as
among the co-delinquents who are equally placed with regard to the
seriousness of the misconduct, disciplinary proceedings initiated are liable to
be quashed.
7. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon a judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of P.V.Mahadevan vs. The
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (6) SCC
636, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold that, any
delay in completion of departmental enquiry would be prejudicial to the
interest of the employee concerned.
8. In the present case, the incident took place in the year 1993, but,
the Charge Memo was issued only on 03.11.2007. Certainly, the delay on the
part of the Department would cause great prejudice to the Writ Petitioner.
The Petitioner was a Junior Assistant at the time of delinquency and the co-
delinquent was Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, who signed the Death
Certificate. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
above two grounds.
9. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Appellants has strenuously contended that, the charges are serious in nature
and the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
10. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and we are convinced that, the proceedings have been initiated much
belatedly, that too after a period of 14 years and the co-delinquent, who was
the superior Officer to the Writ Petitioner, has already been permitted by the
Government to retire, without reserving any power to initiate proceedings
under the Pension Rules. Hence, it is a clear case of discrimination,
prejudicial to the interest of the Writ Petitioner. Thus, we do not find any
material to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.16931 of 2021 is closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [R.V.,J.]
21.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(vm/aeb)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.2594 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
(aeb)
Judgment in
W.A.No.2594 of 2021
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
