Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Venu on 20 January, 2022
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
and
CMP.No.21372 of 2021
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Cooperative, Food and Consumer
Protection Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 006.
2. Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
3. Joint Registrar,
Villupuram Region,
Villupuram.
... appellants
Vs
R. Venu
... respondent
Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated
25.02.2019 in WP No.11134 of 2011.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
2/8
For appellants : M/s. S. Anitha,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Bala Haridoss
JUDGMENT
(made by, M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.11134 of 2011, the
respondent in the writ petition has filed the above writ appeal.
2. The respondent herein filed the writ petition to issue a
Certiorified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the first
respondent and quash the order of the first respondent dated
25.11.2009, confirming the order of the second respondent dated
23.04.2007, and the order of the third respondent dated 23.06.2004,
and consequently, direct the appellants to restore increment, and pay
all the arrears of increment.
3. It is the case of the respondent that at the relevant point of
time, he was working as a Special Officer at Vellimalai Lamp Co-
operative Society and on 01.04.2003, he was issued with a charge
memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
and Appeal) Rules. As per the charge memo, six charges were framed
against the respondent relating to his failure to send the defect
rectification report in respect of final audit for the years commencing
from 1983-84 to 1991-92. According to the charge memo, the
respondent has not taken steps to rectify the audit objection, being the
Special Officer of the society. Based on the charge memo, a
departmental enquiry was conducted in respect of all the six charges
framed against the respondent and the enquiry officer found Charge
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not proved and Charge No.4 alone was
found to be proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment
of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect.
Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the
second respondent/appellate authority and the appellate authority
rejected the appeal by order dated 23.04.2007. A further appeal was
preferred and the same was also rejected on 25.11.2009. Challenging
the order passed by the appellants, the respondent filed the writ
petition.
4. On a perusal of the materials available on record and the
submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides, it could be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
seen that the charge memo was issued to the respondent after a lapse
of 15 years from the date of the discrepancies noticed by the audit. It
is pertinent to note that during the said period, the respondent was not
employed as a Special Officer in the society. The findings of the inquiry
officer with regard to charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 cannot be
segregated from the findings of the inquiry officer with regard to
charge No.4. All the charges framed against the respondent are inter-
related and Charge No.4 alone cannot be segregated and found to be
proved.
5. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has
rightly took into consideration the delay in initiating the disciplinary
action against the respondent. It is pertinent to note that there was
no explanation forthcoming from the appellants for the inordinate
delay of 15 years in initiating action against the respondent. When the
discrepancies had happened during the period 1983-84, the appellants
for the reasons best known to them have remained silent for 15 years.
6. The learned Single Judge has also rightly observed that the
initiation of disciplinary action against the respondent appears to be on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
a mala fide consideration and therefore, found that such disciplinary
action initiated by the third respondent in the writ petition suffers from
colourable exercise of power. The learned Single Judge also observed
that since it is a case of no evidence, the findings of the inquiry officer
in respect of Charge No.4 will have to be interfered with. The learned
Single Judge also observed that the inquiry officer’s findings in respect
of Charge No.4 cannot be singled out without there being any proper
explanation, which ultimately invited the impugned penalty from the
disciplinary authority. It is also evident that the appellate authorities
have blindly chosen to dispose of the appeals without proper and due
exercise of the issues on hand.
7. The appellate authority have not taken into consideration the
crucial aspect of delay in initiating the disciplinary action against the
respondent.
8. In view of the unexplained delay in initiating the disciplinary
action, the orders impugned in the writ petition were rightly set aside
by the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
9. The learned Single Judge also observed that the findings
rendered by the Inquiry officer in respect of Charge No. 4 cannot be
sustained both in law and on facts for the simple reason that the
findings in respect of Charge Nos.1,2,3,5 and 6 will also hold good in
favour of the 4th charge as well.
9. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all
these aspects and rightly set aside the orders impugned in the writ
petition and allowed the writ petition.
10. We do not find any ground to interfere with the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is devoid of
merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.D.,J.] [J.S.N.P.,J.]
20.01.2022
Index: Yes/no
mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Cooperative, Food and Consumer
Protection Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 006.
2. Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
3. Joint Registrar,
Villupuram Region,
Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
(mrn)
W.A.No.3083 of 2021
and
CMP.No.21372 of 2021
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
