Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs A.Sundararajan on 11 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No. 329 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) No. 3269 of 2022
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Tamil Development and Hindu
Religious Endowment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Public Service Commission,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment and Administration,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. .. Appellants
Vs
A.Sundararajan .. Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 06.09.2021 made in W.P.(MD) No. 14657 of
2017.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.Alagumani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 06
September 2021 recorded on W.P(MD) No.14657 of 2017. This
appeal is by the respondent State Authorities.
2. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Government Advocate has
submitted that, the findings of learned Single Judge that the
issuance of charge memo was without authority of law is
contradictory to the Rule position and therefore the said needs to be
interfered with. Learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn the
attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as amended vide G.O.349 dated 12
August 2013. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent
/ original writ petitioner has submitted that, learned Single Judge
has, on the basis of the Rules holding the field, set aside the charge
memo and therefore no interference be made by this Court. It is
submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this Court
finds that, the writ petitioner retired from the post of Executive
Officer Grade-IV. His date of retirement is 31 July 2016. The charge
memo was issued on 19 June 2017. The narration in the charge
memo suggests that, the alleged misconduct was of the year 1996.
It is in these undisputed facts, the decision in the order of learned
Single Judge needs to be examined. Since the writ petitioner had
already attained the age of superannuation on 31 July 2016 and
was issued charge memo in 2017, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,
1978 would come in play. Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, 1978 reads as under:-
“(2) (a) The departmental proceeding
referred to in sub-rule(1), if instituted while the
Government servant was in service, whether before
his retirement or during his re-employment, shall,
after the final retirement of the Government
servant be deemed to be proceedings under this
rule and shall be continued and concluded by the
authority by which they were commenced in the
same manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
Provided that where the departmental proceedings
are instituted by an authority subordinate to the
Government, that authority shall submit a report
recording its findings to the Government.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not
instituted while the Government servant was in
service, whether before his retirement or during his
re-employment,-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
the Government;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution;
and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in
such place as the Government may direct and in
accordance with the Procedure applicable to
departmental proceedings in which an order of
dismissal from service could be made in relation to
the Government servant during his service.”
5. The above Rule would require that, if the charge memo
is issued after the retirement of the employee, the same has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
done by the Government and not any authority subordinate thereto.
The further stipulation is that, the alleged misconduct should not be
more than four years old. In the present case, we find that, the
charge memo was issued by the authority which is not the
Government and further that in the year 2017, the departmental
proceedings were instituted against the retired employee for the
alleged misconduct of the year 1996. We find that, thus there were
two-fold violations of the statutory requirement. For this reason, we
find that the action of the respondent Commissioner was without
authority of law. The interference by learned Single Judge in the
said charge memo can not said to be erroneous in any manner. This
appeal therefore needs to be dismissed.
6. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition would not
survive.
(P.U., J) (R.V., J)
11.04.2022
Index : No
pkn/2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
To:-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Tamil Development and Hindu
Religious Endowment Department,
State of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Public Service Commission,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment and Administration,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
pkn
W.A(MD)No.329 of 2022
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
