Madras High Court
C.Murugesan vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 6 September, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD)No.14297 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.14297 of 2023
and WMP(MD).No.12097 of 2023
C.Murugesan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3.The Director
Directorate of Town Panchayats
Raja Annamalaipuram
Chennai 600 028 ....Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pursuant
to the impugned charge memo in Na.Ka.No.11915-2/2005/Voo2 dated 12.05.2023
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14297 of 2023
issued by the third respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequently,
directing the first respondent to take appropriate action in revoking the order of
suspension dated 30.04.2018 and pass order permitting the petitioner to retire
from service and to sanction pension and other retirement benefits along with
penal interest within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
For M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Commissioner of
Ambasamudram Municipality challenging the charge memo dated 12.05.2023.
2.A perusal of the charge memo issued under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules indicate that the deliquency relates
to the period between 30.05.1994 and 08.06.1998.
3.Though the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on
30.04.2018, he was not permitted to retire and his services were retained due to
pendency of another charge memo. Later, the petitioner was exonerated of those
charges on 02.11.2021. Even thereafter, the petitioner was not permitted to reiire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the charge memo has been issued on 12.05.2023 nearly 5 years after the date
on which the petitioner has attained superannuation.
4.A perusal of the counter affidavit reveals, alleging misconduct on the part
of the writ petitioner, while he was a Junior Assistant in Ettayapuram Town
Panchayat from 30.05.1994 to 08.06.1998, a complaint was sent to the High
Court. High Court has forwarded the said complaint to the Directorate of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption and they conducted a preliminary enquiry on
28.05.1999 as it warranted deeper probe. The enquiry was initiated on 23.02.1999
and the petitioner was implicated as an additional accused in the said case on
12.03.2005. Therefore, it is clear that the department was aware of the
delinquency wayback in the year 1999 itself and they have not chosen to issue
any charge memo.
5.It is settled position of law that the disciplinary proceedings can be
conducted simultanouely along with the criminal proceedings. The said fact has
been reiterated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.66, Human Resources
Management (N) Department, dated 06.07.2022 also. However, the department
has not chosen to issue a charge memo. The present impugned charge memo has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been issued in the year 2023 after a period of 29 years from the date of alleged
deliquency. In Paragraph No.16 (ii) of the counter affidavit, the respondents have
stated that the period of investigation and completion of judicial process shall not
be construed as delay. When the pendency of the criminal proceedings is not a bar
for initiating departmental proceedings, the respondents department have not
assigned any valid reason for not issuing a charge memo for the past 29 years.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636
(P.V.Mahadevan Vs. Md.T.N.Housing Board) in Paragraph No.7 & 11 has held
as follows:
“7.The very same ground has been specifically raised in this
appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than
10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge
memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in
the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such
proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for
quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition.
11.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed
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. “
7.The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2005 (5) CTC
P 451 (The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Chennai and another Vs. N.Sivasamy Commercial Tax Officer (under
suspension) Chennai and another) in Paragraph No.14 has held as follows:
“14...............It is also brought to our notice that the enquiry
officer was appointed after a lapse of 32 months from the date of issue of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
charge memo. Even after the appointment of the enquiry officer, the
department has not taken steps to complete the enquiry. Even though
there is no stay order by the Tribunal, the enquiry was not proceeded
with. We are satisfied that the applicant had been exercising
quasi-judicial power as Commercial Tax Officer and assuming that there
was any error, the remedy would be by way of appeal or revision as
provided in the C.S.T Act and TNGST Act and hence they could not be
the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings. Further, there was
inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and the same was issued
just 7 days before the date of superannuation. Though the alleged lapse
occurred in the year 1995 and certain charges related to the period
1993-94, the charge memo was issued on 15-7-97 and served on
23-7-97, just 7 days before the date of retirement. The contention of the
applicant that only with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish,
the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored........”
8.In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
Division Bench of our High Court, it is clear that the charge memo is issued after
much delay and the delay has not been explained by the department, it would
cause great prejudice to the employee and it has to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.In view of the above said deliberations, the charge memo impugned in
the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2024
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No.
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3.The Director
Directorate of Town Panchayats
Raja Annamalaipuram
Chennai 600 028
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
