Madras High Court
K.Baskar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 24 October, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.24499, 24501, 24505, 24508, 24511 & 24512 of 2024
K.Baskar .. Petitioner
(in all cases)
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to the Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Addl. Chief Secretary / Commissioner of
Revenue Administration,
Commissionerate of Revenue Administration & Disaster,
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005. .. Respondents
(in all cases)
Prayer in W.P.No.22490 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records relating to Impugned Charge Memo dated 11.06.2024 in
C.M.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the
same.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
Prayer in W.P.No.22494 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records relating to Impugned Order dated
28.06.2024 in G.O.(2D).No.165, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department Services Wing, Ser.2(2) Section passed by the 1st respondent
and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to
permit the petitioner to retire from service with all terminal benefits etc.,
with effect from 30.06.2024.
Prayer in W.P.No.22499 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records relating to Impugned Charge Memo dated 27.06.2024 in
Ku.Ku.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash
the same.
(In all cases):
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Marudhachalam
For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandhakumar
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and
hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this
common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
2.W.P.No.22490 of 2024 has been filed challenging the charge
memo dated 11.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent. W.P.No.22499 of
2024 has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 27.06.2024
issued by the 2nd respondent. W.P.No.22494 of 2024 has been filed
challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated
28.06.2024, whereby the petitioner was not permitted to retire from
service pursuant to the order of suspension passed on 26.06.2024.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services in the
Revenue Department in the year 1984 as Junior Assistant. Subsequently,
he was promoted as an Assistant in the year 1993. Thereafter, the
petitioner was promoted as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2006. In
the year 2009, the petitioner was promoted as Tahsildar. He held this
post till 2013 and in the year 2013, the petitioner was appointed as
Special Tahsildar - Land Acquisition. Ultimately, in the year 2015, the
petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector.
4.A charge memo dated 11.06.2024 came to be issued against the
petitioner to initiate proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the ground that the
petitioner failed to take action to file appeal against the orders passed by
the Hosur Sub Court in the year 2007 enhancing the compensation
granted in five L.A.O.P. cases and thereby caused financial loss to the
Government.
5.The petitioner was placed under suspension by the 1st
respondent through proceedings dated 26.06.2024 on the ground that the
criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner and also on the
ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending. Thereafter, the second
charge memo dated 27.06.2024 came to be issued against the petitioner
to proceed further under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the ground that criminal cases are
pending against the petitioner before the competent Court.
6.The petitioner was attaining the age of superannuation on
30.06.2024. In the light of the order of suspension passed on 26.06.2024
and the pending charge memos, the 1st respondent through proceedings
dated 28.06.2024 did not permit the petitioner to retire from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
7.All the above proceedings have been put to challenge in these
writ petitions.
8.Individual counter affidavit has been filed in the above writ
petitions. The respondents have justified the issuance of two charge
memos against the petitioner and also the suspension order issued
against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner was about to reach the age of
superannuation, the ultimate order was passed not permitting the
petitioner to retire from service, since the disciplinary proceedings were
pending and the criminal cases were pending. In view of the same, the
respondents have sought for the dismissal of all these writ petitions.
9.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
10.This Court will first take up the charge memo that was issued
by the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2024 for consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
11.The above charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner while holding the post of Deputy Tahsildar at
Krishnagiri District, failed to take action by filing appeal against the
orders passed by the Sub Court in five L.A.O.P. cases dated 22.01.2007
and 31.01.2007, whereby the compensation was enhanced and therefore,
it resulted in financial loss to the Government.
12.It is clear from the above charge memo that the order passed by
the competent Court pertains to the year 2007. On carefully going
through the records, it is seen that the petitioner was only holding the
post of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar for the period from 29.06.2006 to
23.08.2009. Looking at the duties and responsibilities of a Zonal Deputy
Tahsildar, it is seen that totally 28 Items have been listed and none of it
pertains to filing of appeal against the order passed in land acquisition
cases. It is therefore clear that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time
was holding the post of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and could not have
initiated any proceedings for filing appeal against the order passed by the
Court in the L.A.O.P. cases, whereby the compensation was enhanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
13.Apart from the above, this incident is said to have taken place
in the year 2007 and whereas, the charge memo came to be issued in the
year 2024 after nearly 17 years. There are absolutely no reasons assigned
as to why there was such an exorbitant delay in initiating disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. The delay by itself is not a ground to
interfere with the charge memo. However, unexplained delay will prove
fatal for a charge memo. Hence, the charge memo issued in the year
2024 for an incident which took place in the year 2007 cannot be
sustained on the ground of unexplained delay.
14.The other ground that has been raised is that even if the
allegations made in the charge memo are taken to be correct, the same
does not warrant initiation of proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This Court has
repeatedly held that whenever proceedings are initiated under Rule
17(b), it must involve a mental element or a moral turpitude. In the case
in hand, the allegation is that appeal was not filed against the order
passed in the L.A.O.P. cases. This allegation at the best will only result
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
in negligence which does not warrant initiating proceedings for major
penalty under Rule 17(b).
15.For all the above reasons, the charge memo dated 11.06.2024
issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained and it has to be
interfered by this Court.
16.This Court will now go into the second charge memo dated
27.06.2024 issued against the petitioner. This charge memo was issued
on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner
before the competent Court. Hence, it is clear that the charge memo itself
is based on the criminal proceedings that were pending and not on any
other ground.
17.There were two criminal proceedings in which the petitioner
was arrayed as an accused. The first case is the proceedings in
C.C.No.556 of 2019 which was pending before the learned Judicial
Magisrate No.II, Krishnagiri. After a full fledged trial, by judgment
dated 30.01.2024, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner from all charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
and thereby, the criminal proceedings itself came to an end.
18.The next criminal case pertains to the case in C.C.No.81 of
2024 which was pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Krishnagiri. This proceedings became a subject matter of
challenge in Crl.O.P.No.14282 of 2024 before this Court. This Court by
order dated 29.07.2024, found that the offence has not been made out
and accordingly,the proceedings itself was quashed.
19.In view of the above, the second criminal case that was put
against the petitioner also came to an end. Thus, the second charge
memo that was issued based on the pending criminal proceedings can no
longer survive, since both the criminal proceedings ended up in favour
of the petitioner. Accordingly, the second charge memo issued by the
2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024, is also liable to be interfered by this
Court.
20.The order of suspension dated 26.06.2024 passed by the 1st
respondent and the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
not permitting the petitioner to retire from service was based on the
above two charge memos and the criminal case that were pending
against the petitioner. Since, the criminal proceedings have ended in
acquittal and this Court is inclined to interfere with both the charge
memos, these orders are also liable to be quashed by this Court.
21.The upshot of the above discussion is that the proceedings of
the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2024 in C.M.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017, the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024 in
Ku.Ku.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent
dated 28.06.2024 in G.O.(2D).No.165, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department Services Wing, Ser.2(2) Section are hereby
quashed. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to permit the
petitioner to retire from service effective from 30.06.2024. It goes
without saying that the petitioner will be entitled for all service and
monetary benefits. Proceedings shall be issued in this regard by the 1 st
respondent within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
22.In the result, all these Writ Petitions stands allowed with the
above directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed. No costs.
24.10.2024
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to the Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Addl. Chief Secretary / Commissioner of
Revenue Administration,
Commissionerate of Revenue Administration & Disaster,
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
