Madras High Court
K.Chinnaraj vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 27 April, 2023
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
W.M.P.No.22239 of 2016
K.Chinnaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9
2. The Director,
The Directorate of Town Panchayat,
4th Floor, Kuralagam Building,
Chennai – 108
3. The District Collector,
Erode District ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
3rd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.47804/2011/P2 dated
26.03.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd
respondent to accord further promotion and also all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Vijayakumar
Sr.Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal
Government Advocate
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a
certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the 3rd respondent
vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.47804/2011/P2 dated 26.03.2016 and to
quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to accord
further promotion and also all attendant benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner has joined in the town panchayat department as a Bill
Collector through employment exchange on 18.12.1986 at Kembanaicken
Palayam Town Panchayat at Erode District and later on, the petitioner
served in several places as a bill collector. Further, during his tenure, as a
bill collector, in the year 1998, in Siruvallur Town Panchayat, Erode District,
the petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Vigilance and Anticorruption Act along with Sections
218 and 384 r/w 34 of IPC in C.C.No.37 of 2000 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Erode and the learned Judge, convicted the petitioner by order
dated 21.07.2004. The petitioner was dismissed from service on
24.12.2007. As against the order passed in C.C.No.37 of 2000, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.965 of
2004 and the same was allowed by order dated 28.06.2011 on the ground
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand and receipt
of illegal gratification. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents
and submitted a representation on 14.09.2011 seeking reinstatement of
service from the date of suspension. Thereafter, the 1st respondent directed
the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of acquittal
passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.965 of 2004. Subsequently, the 2nd
respondent directed the 3rd respondent by order dated 24.11.2015 to
reinstate the petitioner in service and the 3rd respondent by order dated
22.12.2015 reinstated the petitioner in service.
(ii) In pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd
respondent on 03.03.2016 claiming his accrued benefits and since the
same was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17423 of 2016 for a
direction to consider the said representation. This Court by order dated
01.06.2016 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the said representation
as expeditiously as possible. While that being the case, the petitioner
received charge memo from the 3rd respondent on 26.03.2016 alleging
serious misconduct based upon criminal proceedings, which ended in
acquittal, hence this petition is filed seeking to quash the said charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
memo.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondents failed to note that no charge memo under Rule 17(b) of
Tamilnadu Conduct Service (Disciplinary & Authority) Rules would lie
against the petitioner, when a similar set of charges framed against the
petitioner was totally rejected by this Court by rendering acquittal to the
petitioner in Crl.A.No.965 of 2004. Further, the impugned charge memo is
highly belated and the respondents have not given any explanation for
issuing the charge memo after a span of almost five years from the date of
order of acquittal on 28.06.2011.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submit that the
witnesses and other materials referred to in the charge memo are nothing
but replica of the same, as relied upon in the earlier judicial proceedings,
which were rejected in toto. Further, the continuance of the disciplinary
proceedings for a period of more than 15 years, depriving the right of the
petitioner to claim his further promotion, hence, pleaded to set aside the
impugned charge memo.
5. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following Judgments in support of his case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
(i) The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
C.A.No.4901 of 2005 [P.V.Mahadevan Vs.Tamilnadu Housing Board]
(ii) The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
C.A.No.1491 of 2006 [Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,]
(iii) The order of this Court reported in 2018 (4) CTC 257
[Gurusiddappa Vs. Office of the Group Commandant, Central Industrial
Security]
(iv) The order of this Court in W.P.No.14652 of 2021 [T.K.Govindan
Vs. The Chairman, TANGEDCO), Chennai and others]
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would submit that the 3rd respondent has not prolonged the
disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was subjected to criminal
proceedings on 27.08.1998 and convicted on 21.07.2004 and further
acquited on 28.06.2011 and it is the petitioner who had prolonged and
dragged on the issue. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is justified in initiating
the disciplinary proceedings.
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the charge memo has been issued to the petitioner for his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
misconduct and the respondents have authority, power and jurisdiction to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the same has
been rightly initiated. That apart, the learned Government Advocate for the
respondents contended that the charge memo is not arbitrary, not whimsical
and has substance and the same has been issued for the mis-conduct of
the petitioner. The respondents have no role in the criminal case and the
criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings operate in a different
directions, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents placed on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was originally appointed as Bill
Collector through employment exchange on 18.12.1986 at Kembanaicken
Palayam Town Panchayat at Erode District and probation was declared vide
proceedings dated 02.05.1989. While serving as Bill Collector in the year
1998, at Siruvallur Town Panchayat, Erode, the petitioner was trapped and
arrested on 27.08.1998 on the charges of demanding and accepting bribe
of Rs.1,000/- from one K.M.Kuppusamy for fixing lesser tax for his newly
built coconut coir production mill and the petitioner was placed under
suspension on 28.08.1998. The 3rd respondent had accorded sanction for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
criminal prosecution of the petitioner dated 02.05.2000 and charge sheet
was taken on file on 18.09.2000 in C.C.No.37 of 2000.
10. It is evident that the petitioner filed O.A.No.1758 of 2003 and
obtained an order dated 13.05.2003 directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate
the petitioner at some other town by revoking the suspension. Accordingly,
by following the procedures laid down, the 3rd respondent vide order dated
20.02.2004, had revoked the petitioner's suspension and reinstated in
service as bill collector at Periyakodiveri Town Panchayat. Further, by order
dated 21.07.2004 in C.C.No.37 of 2000, the petitioner was convicted, hence
contemplating a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was suspended from service
on 31.07.2004 by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued
with a show cause notice dated 27.10.2006 by the 3rd respondent and the
petitioner had offered his explanation dated 10.11.2006 stating that he had
filed appeal in Crl.A.No.965 of 2004. Based on the records and after
independently applying the rules and procedures, the 2nd respondent by
proceedings dated 24.12.2007 had imposed penalty of dismissal from
service with immediate effect.
11. It transpires from the materials placed on record that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
was acquitted from the said criminal case by this Court by Judgment dated
28.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.965 of 2004. Upon following the various procedures
stipulated therein, the 3rd respondent, had provided employment to the
petitioner as Bill Collector in Anthiyur Town Panchayat on 22.12.2015 and
the petitioner joined duty on 23.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was
served with a charge memo dated 26.03.2016 by the 3rd respondent and the
petitioner submitted his explanation dated 25.07.2016 denying the charges
and seeking to set aside the charge memo, which necessitated the
Petitioner to file the present petition.
12. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is to be seen that
whether the charges are held proved in the departmental enquiry in the teeth
of the clear finding given by the criminal court. Once the criminal finding
has become final, the departmental action proceeded against the petitioner
on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be countenanced in
law, as the petitioner was admittedly acquitted. Once the petitioner has
been acquitted, the departmental action in imposing the penalty for the
same incident, is completely without any justification.
13. It is worthwhile to recall and recollect the Judgment of Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court reported in MANU/TN/1915/2007 [The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection
Department and Ors. Vs. N. Ponniah and Ors. ] wherein it is held as under:
“Though Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special
Government Pleader would attempt to contend that the charges
were of serious nature and therefore, the order of the Tribunal
should be interfered with, we are unable to countenance such a
plea. A part from what has been observed by the Tribunal,
even in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, we do
not find any anxiety shown hastening the disciplinary
proceedings against the first respondent. In fact, even as on
date i.e. July 2007, the fact remains that no progress had been
made in respect of the charge memo dated 31.03.1998 issued
to the first respondent. The ill effect of all the above factors is
that in respect of an incident which happened in the year 1989-
1990, the petitioners have displayed supine indifference for the
past nearly 17 years, during which period not even the copies
of the documents were made available to the first respondent
by the petitioners. In spite of such a lethargic attitude displayed
by the petitioners, if they were to be permitted to proceed with
the charge memo as against the first respondent, we are of the
considered opinion that it would result in putting a premium on
the total inaction and indifferent attitude displayed by the
petitioners in taking disciplinary action against the first
respondent. After the due date of retirement of the first
respondent, more than 15 years have gone by and that by itself
would act as sufficient punishment for the first respondent. In
this context, it will be more appropriate to refer to the decision of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/0483/2005 :
(2005)IIILLJ527SC [P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu
Housing Board], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
paragraph No. 10, has noted in that case that more than ten
years delay was involved in initiating the disciplinary
proceedings by issuing a charge memo and that by itself would
render the departmental proceedings vitiated. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down the ratio in such cases in
paragraph No. 14, which reads as under:
14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
allowing the respondent to proceed further with the
departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very
prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government
official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would
cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer
concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a
government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in
the interests of the government employee but in public interest
and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of
the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to
draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant
had already suffered enough and more on account of the
disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony
and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary
proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the
mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for
initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not
be made to suffer.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
14. Applying the above said ratio to the facts of this case, this Court
is of the view that the present case also stands on a equal footing, wherein
the petitioner was trapped and arrested on 27.08.1998 on the ground of
demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/- from one K.M.Kuppusamy for
fixing lesser tax for his newly built coconut coir production mill and the
petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.08.1998. Further, criminal
proceedings were initiated in C.C.No.37 of 2000 and that the petitioner
filed O.A.No.1758 of 2003 and obtained an order dated 13.05.2003
directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner at some other town by
revoking the suspension, thereafter, the 3rd respondent vide order dated
20.02.2004, had revoked the petitioner's suspension and reinstated in
service as bill collector at Periyakodiveri Town Panchayat. Further, by order
dated 21.07.2004 in C.C.No.37 of 2000, the petitioner was convicted and he
was suspended from service on 31.07.2004 and thereafter, the 2nd
respondent by proceedings dated 24.12.2007 had imposed penalty of
dismissal from service with immediate effect. When the petitioner was
acquitted from the said criminal case by this Court by Judgment dated
28.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.965 of 2004 and the petitioner joined duty on
23.12.2015, issuing the present charge memo dated 26.03.2016 that too on
the same set of facts, cannot be allowed to continue and the same shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Therefore, this Court has no
hesitation to quash the said Charge Memo in proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.47804/2011/P2 dated 26.03.2016 and the Writ Petition
succeeds. The respondents are directed to settle the relevant benefits to the
petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order by following the Rules and Procedures
laid down under the Law.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
27.04.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Nonspeaking order
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.
ssd
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9
2. The Director,
The Directorate of Town Panchayat,
4th Floor, Kuralagam Building,
Chennai – 108
3. The District Collector,
Erode District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
WMP No.22239 of 2016
W.P.No.25990 of 2016 &
W.M.P.No.22239 of 2016
27.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
