Madras High Court
Madhivanan vs Agriculture Production ... on 24 March, 2022
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
Madhivanan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Agriculture Production Commissioner
and Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Agriculture Department,
Cuddalore. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned order G.O.No.3D No.231 Department of Agriculture
dated 21.11.2011 by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and
against law and direct reinstatement in service with back wages.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein, while serving as an Agricultural Officer in the
respondent Department, had went on medical leave from 07.11.1994 to
03.04.1996. Though the petitioner had applied for leave on medical grounds,
the same was not sanctioned. On 03.01.1996, the petitioner was subjected to
medical examination and on the advise of the Medical Board, he was required
to join on 04.01.1996. Subsequently, on 04.04.1996, he had resumed his
duties as an Agricultural Officer. After about 8 years, charges were framed
against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, for availing leave of more than 1 year. On the
strength of proven charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service on
16.12.2011. This dismissal order is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay of
more than 8 years has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and such a
delay in framing the charges would be fatal to the ultimate punishment
imposed.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand,
submitted that the petitioner was not sanctioned with the leave for more than
1 year and therefore, they were justified in initiating departmental
proceedings against him.
5. Apparently, the charges against the petitioner framed on 17.03.2004
pertains to the leave taken by him between 07.11.1994 and 03.04.1996,
which is about more than 8 years and hence, could be termed to be inordinate
in nature.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme as well as this Court in various decisions have
held that the delay in initiating departmental proceedings vitiates the entire
departmental proceedings. In a decision rendered by this Court in the case of
D.Sridhar Vs. The Chairman, TANGEDCO and others passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
W.P.No.18781 of 2018, dated 27.09.2021, I had the occasion of dealing with
the ground of delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings and by
placing reliance on two other decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court, had struck down the departmental action on the ground of delay. The
relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“11. Insofar as the ground touching upon the
justification on the part of the respondent Corporation in
initiating departmental action after considerable delay
of 11 years, is concerned, an Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in the case of V.Bhoopathy (supra), had held
that inordinate delay in initiating departmental action,
would cause serious prejudice to the delinquent and is
therefore liable to be quashed. The relevant portion of
the order reads as follows:-
“17. In the above said facts and
circumstances, it can be very well said that the
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the
issuance of the Charge Memo dated 18.12.2013
shall cause serious prejudice to the petitioner
leading to miscarriage of justice. Delay of more
than 16 years, a considerable part of which has
not been satisfactorily explained, will result in
serious prejudice to the petitioner leading to
miscarriage of justice. Hence we are inclined to
accept the contention of the petitioner. In this
regard, the Tribunal seems to have misguided
itself in appreciating and applying the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
instructions given in the Compendium on Postal
Complaints, 1998. We are unable to agree with
the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for the
dismissal of the Original Application. We are of
the considered view that the case on hand is a fit
one for quashing the departmental proceedings.”
12. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, an Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in P.Shankar's case (supra),
had comprehensively dealt on both these grounds in the
following manner:-
“13. ... Though pendency of the criminal
case is not a bar for the department to proceed
with the departmental enquiry against the
appellant, in the instant case, the department,
without any reason, waited for the conclusion of
the criminal trial. It is not as though the charge
memo was issued simultaneously when the
criminal case was pending and on account of the
pendency of the criminal case, they did not
proceed with the departmental enquiry. On the
other hand, the Department waited for the result
of the criminal trial and when it turned in favour
of the appellant, resorted to proceed with the
departmental proceedings after acquittal by the
criminal court, for the very same set of charges.
Above all, the charges for which the appellant
stood trial in the criminal case is verbatim the
same in the departmental enquiry proposed by
the respondents against the appellant. The delay
in initiating the departmental proceedings
against the appellant, in our opinion, vitiates the
entire departmental proceedings proposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
against the appellant. In the present case, the
complaint was given in the year 2009 and the
Criminal Court (Special Judge/Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thiruvallur, passed the Judgment of
acquittal on 18.01.2017 in Special Case No.7 of
2009. Soon after the verdict of the criminal
court, the instant charge memo was issued to the
appellant on 15.11.2017. Thereafter, the
appellant/writ petitioner was also reinstated in
service and he joined the post of Assistant
Engineer on 15.06.2018, without prejudice to the
department proceedings proposed against him.
Such a course of action resorted to by the
department cannot be countenanced. We are
therefore inclined to interfere with the order
passed by the learned single Judge in the writ
petition.”
13. In accordance with the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as, the decisions of this
Court cited above, the respondents may not be justified
in initiating departmental action against the petitioner
herein for a similar set of charges, on which the
petitioner was tried by the trial Court and ultimately
acquitted. That apart, such a departmental action would
also be liable to be struck out on the ground of delay.”
7. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. When there is no sufficient
reason to explain the delay on the part of the respondents in initiating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
departmental action for a cause of action that took place 8 years back, the
consequential enquiry and the punishment of dismissal cannot be sustained,
in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, as extracted
above.
8. In normal circumstances, when the punishment of dismissal is set
aside, the employee would be entitled for all the service and monetary
benefits. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has been admittedly
absent for the period between 07.11.1994 and 03.04.1996, based on which,
the action has been initiated. Though the departmental action under Rule
17(b) seems to be justifiable, the punishment cannot be sustained, in view of
the delay in initiating the proceedings. Thus, this Court is of the view that if
the arrears of salaries are withheld, the ends of justice could be secured.
9. In the light of the above observations, the impugned order passed by
the first respondent dated 21.11.2011 is quashed. Consequently, the first and
second respondents shall pass appropriate orders, for disbursement of the
retirement and pensionary benefits applicable to the petitioner, together with
continuity of service, from the date of dismissal, till the date of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
superannuation, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the arrears of
salaries from the date of his dismissal.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
24.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
To
1.Agriculture Production Commissioner
and Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Agriculture Department,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk
W.P.No.9440 of 2012
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
