Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs A.Subramani on 25 February, 2022
W.A.No.391 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 391 of 2022
The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Public Works Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009. ... Appellant
-vs-
A.Subramani .... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to allow the Writ
Appeal and to set aside the order dated 08.01.2020 made in Writ Petition No.44625 of
2016.
For Appellant : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Ravishanmugam
*****
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.391 of 2022
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,J
The Present Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 08.01.2020, made in W.P.No.44625 of 2016, in allowing the Writ Petition.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant
submitted that the learned Judge ought to have quashed the Charge Memo dated
13.03.2014 on the ground of delay only, without considering the other facts and
circumstances of the case, on merits as to the delinquencies. He further submitted that
while considering the question of delay, the Courts have to look into the nature of
charges, gravity of misconduct, extent of delay as well as possible prejudice, which
would be caused to the delinquent on account of such belated initiation of disciplinary
proceedings as per the Judgment of this Court in V.Mallika Vs. Secretary to
Government, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2011 (8) MLJ 256.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the incident
is of the year 1993-1994 and the charges have been framed after 21 years and this Court
by an order dated 03.01.2017 granted stay of all proceedings and in the interregnum,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.391 of 2022
most of the relevant witnesses have retired or passed away and therefore after a lapse of
more than 19 years (now), the departmental enquiry, should not be permitted to proceed,
as the delay will severely prejudice the case of the petitioner, in preparing his defence.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. A perusal of the order passed by this Court would go to show that the learned
Single Judge has considered the fact that most of the witnesses have retired or passed
away and there is no reason forthcoming to why there has been delay for 21 years in
completing the departmental enquiry and even if an officer tenders the record books as
evidence, it would be difficult for the Writ Petitioner to contradict it by producing other
officers and even if the department discharges itself initial burden, the Writ Petitioner
would not be able to discharge the onus on him for the simple reason that at this length
of time it is impossible for him to produce relevant documents and produce personnel
who can depose in the enquiry. The learned Single Judge further observed that though
it is clear that Courts must be extremely slow in interfering the Charge Memo, but in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein 21 years have passed after the
enquiry, the project has been abandoned, and the officers have retired, serious prejudice
will be caused to the Writ Petitioner in continuing with the enquiry. The said findings of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.391 of 2022
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,J
arr
the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct and we find no reason to interfere with the
same.
Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [M.S.Q., J]
25.02.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr
W.A.No. 391 of 2022
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
