Madras High Court
P.Kubendran vs The Additional Chief Secretary To on 12 January, 2023
W.P. No.11937 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P. No.11937 of 2022 and W.M.P.
Nos.11352 and 11357 of 2022
P.Kubendran ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
impugned Charge Memo issued by the second respondent in
Roc.No.12378/2008/V2 dated 01.04.2022 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar
For respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar,
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P. No.11937 of 2022
ORDER
Challenging the impugned Charge Memo dated 01.04.2022 issued
by the second respondent in Roc.No.12378/2008/V2, this writ petition
has been filed.
2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned charge memo dated
01.04.2022 issued to him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 on the following grounds:
a)There is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner;
b)The alleged incident happened in the year 2001;
c)Earlier charge memo was issued for the alleged incident on
29.08.2009 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules 1955;
d)An explanation was submitted by the petitioner to Rule 17(a)
charge on 30.11.2009 and thereafter, no further steps were taken by the
respondents in the disciplinary proceedings;
e)The petitioner sought for promotion by his representation dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.11937 of 2022
21.01.2022;
f)On receipt of the representation of the petitioner dated
21.01.2022 seeking for promotion, the respondents have issued the
charge memo dated 01.04.2022;
g)The charge memo issued under Rule 17(a) in the year 2009
against the petitioner is identical to the charge memo dated 01.04.2022,
which is challenged in this writ petition.
h)The only difference is that Rule 17(a) charge has been converted
to Rule 17(b) charge under the impugned charge memo.
3.A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent
denying the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, there is no
inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner. Only after receiving the explanation from the petitioner to the
Rule 17(a) charge, they have initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing
the impugned charge memo dated 01.04.2022.
4.As seen from the above dates and events, it is clear that there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.11937 of 2022
an inordinate delay in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner and there is also an inordinate delay in completion
of the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents. The alleged incident
happened in the year 2001, while the petitioner was working as an
Assistant Commissioner in the Madurai City Municipal Corporation.
Even though the incident happened in the year 2001, a charge memo was
issued under Rule 17(a) to the petitioner only in the year 2009, which is
also not in dispute. An explanation was also submitted by the petitioner
to the said charge memo immediately on receipt of the same. However, it
has taken thirteen long years for the respondents to convert the Rule
17(a) charge to one under Rule 17(B). The petitioner had also given a
representation on 21.01.2022 seeking for promotion. But on receipt of
the said request, the respondents have issued the impugned charge memo
dated 01.04.2022.
5.From the foregoing facts, it is clear that there is an inordinate
delay on the part of the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner and concluding the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.11937 of 2022
6.The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, namely, a)P.V.Mahadevan vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu
Housing Board reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636; b)K.G.Thulasirangan vs.
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others reported
in 2018 (2) Writ Law Report 190; c)The Principal Secretary to
Government Handlooms vs. M.Rathakrishnan reported in MANU/TN/
1561/2022, dealing with the question of inordinate delay in completing
the disciplinary proceedings, support the case of the petitioner.
7.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a Single
Bench decision of this Court dated 11.04.2022 in the case of
V.Balasubramanian vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in
MANU/TN/2673/2022 in respect of his contention that for the same set
of allegations, Rule 17(a) charge cannot be converted to Rule 17(b)
charge. The said decision squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand
also as for the same set of allegations, after a lapse of several years, 17(a)
charge has been converted to one under Rule 17(b).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.11937 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vga
8.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned charge memo dated
01.04.2022 is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected W.M.Ps stand closed. No costs.
12.01.2023
Index: Yes/No
vga
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
W.P. No.11937 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.11352 and 11357 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
