Madras High Court
B.Charles Prabhakaran vs The Secretary To Government on 17 April, 2025
W.P.No.1851 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 13.02.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 17.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.1851 of 2021
and
WMP.No.2086 of 2021
B.Charles Prabhakaran
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department,
Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.
...Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order
st
passed by the 1 Respondent issued in G.O.(D).No. 46, Welfare of the Differently
Abled Persons (WDA.1) Department dated 11.12.2020 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fazil,
Additional Government Pleader
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
W.P.No.1851 of 2021
ORDER
Writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated
11.12.2020 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Director in the Department
of Welfare of Differently Abled Persons. On 29.06.2019, a charge memo was
issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeals) Rules, 1955, levelling five charges. The petitioner submitted his
nd
explanation to the charge memo on 26.07.2019. The 2 respondent appointed an
enquiry officer who submitted his report on 29.08.2019. Meanwhile, on the eve of
petitioners retirement from service, he was issued with a suspension order dated
29.08.2019. Thereafter vide order dated 30.08.2019, on attaining the age of
superannuation, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service. Based on the
enquiry officer's report, the Director of Department of Welfare of Differently
Abled persons, issued a show cause notice dated 30.09.2019, calling for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
petitioner's explanation on the findings of the enquiry officer's report. The
petitioner on 14.10.2019, submitted his explanation to the findings of the enquiry
officer. Thereafter, on 10.01.2020, the Secretary to Government, directed the
petitioner to submit his explanation on the findings of the enquiry officer's report.
The petitioner submitted his further explanation on 13.01.2010, and pursuant
st
thereto, the 1 respondent issued the letter dated 23.05.2020, calling for the
petitioner's explanation to the proposed punishment. The petitioner vide his reply
st
dated 28.05.2020, objected to the proposed punishment. However, the 1
respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.46, Welfare of the
Differently Abled Persons (WDA.1) Department, dated 11.12.2020, imposing the
punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500/- per month for 12 months and recovery of
Rs.3,52,000/- from the petitioners DCRG amount. Aggrieved by the impugned
punishment, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
3. The respondents filed counter denying all the allegations and contentions
raised in the petitioner's affidavit. The respondents submitted that based on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
preliminary enquiry, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner. The respondents submitted that after conducting a fullfledged enquiry
and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer
submitted his report, finding that all the 5 charges against the petitioner were
proved. The respondents submitted that after giving the petitioner full opportunity
to submit his explanations to the enquiry officer's report and the proposed
punishment, the impugned order was passed. The respondents further submitted
that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after scrutinizing the relevant
documents gave concurrence to the action taken by the respondents, vide letter
dated 14.10.2020. The respondents therefore submitted that there was no infirmity
or illegality in the disciplinary proceedings and as the charges against the
petitioner were proved the punishment was imposed under the impugned order.
The respondents hence prayed that the writ petition deserved to the dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order
was vitiated and deserved to be set aside as it was a non-speaking order. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
learned counsel submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings were liable to be
quashed on the short ground of inordinate and unexplained delay of over 6 years in
concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted
that the impugned order suffers from the vice of procedural irregularities. The
learned counsel therefore submitted that the writ petition deserved to be allowed.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand reiterated the
contentions raised in the counter in support of the impugned order.
6. I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the materials
placed on record.
7. The admitted facts are that, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo
nd
by the 2 respondent on 29.06.2019, to which the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 26.07.2019. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry
nd
officer submitted his report to the 2 respondent on 29.08.2019. Pursuant thereto,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
nd
the 2 respondent issued letter to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the
findings of the enquiry officer which was received by the petitioner on 11.10.2019.
The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 14.10.2019, and after lapse of
st
3 months, the 1 respondent issued a letter to the petitioner on 10.10.2019, calling
for his further explanation to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his
st
further explanation to the said letter on 13.01.2020. Later, on 23.05.2020, the 1
respondent issued a communication to the petitioner calling for his explanation on
the proposed punishment. The petitioner sent his reply on 28.05.2020, and
thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.12.2020, was passed imposing the
punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500/- for 12 months and for recovery of
Rs.3,52,000/- on the DCRG amount of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner is before this court.
8. The first and foremost objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner
against the impugned order of punishment is that it is a non speaking order. A
st
perusal of the impugned order shows that the 1 respondent had merely referred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
the charges, the explanation of the petitioner, the findings of the enquiry officer,
the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, dated 14.10.2020, and
finally in Para 9 concluded that the 5 charges levelled against the petitioner were
st
proved. The 1 respondent thereafter imposed the punishment of cut in pension of
Rs.500/- for 12 months and recovery of Rs.3,52,000/- from the petitioners DCRG
amount. From a reading of the entire impugned order, which runs to 12 pages, it is
seen that there is absolutely no discussion on the explanations offered by the
petitioner to the proposed punishment. The petitioner in his explanation dated
28.05.2020, raised several objections, few of which briefly stated, are as follows:
1. The charge memo was belatedly issued after 6 years of the incident,
which took place between April 2013 and July 2014.
2. There was no mis-appropriation of Government money.
3. The preliminary and final enquiry was conducted by the same officer.
4. The charge memo was issued selectively and discriminately against the
petitioner alone.
The petitioner in support of objection 4 above gave instances of 2 co-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
delinquent officer's who were allowed to retire by waiving the charges. In my
st
view when the petitioner raised several grounds, the 1 respondent ought to have
considered the same and given cogent reasons for rejecting the same. Even
st
without discussing any of the petitioner's objections, the 1 respondent merely
stated that the records were perused and on independent scrutiny, it was found that
st
all the 5 charges were proved. The 1 respondents failure to consider the
petitioner's objections and provide reasons for rejection, in my view is a fatal flaw.
Consequently, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
order, is non-speaking in nature.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that there was an
unexplained inordinate delay of 6 years in initiating and concluding the
disciplinary proceedings. For an incident which took place between April 2013 to
July 2014, the charge memo was issued on 29.06.2019, which is 5 years after the
incident. The enquiry report was submitted on 29.08.2019 and thereafter, after a
lapse of one year, the impugned order was passed. It is therefore seen that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
was a delay of 5 years in initiating the proceedings and more than 1 ½ years in
concluding the same. There is absolutely no explanation for the long delay of over
6 years by the respondents. It is also not the respondents case that the petitioner
was responsible for the delay.
10. It is seen that though the petitioner in the affidavit had taken a
categorical stand that the impugned proceedings were vitiated for delay and
latches, the respondents did not categorically deny the same in the counter. The
respondents merely stated that the petitioner had not raised the objection earlier. In
my view, in the absence of any justifiable reasons for the delay, the mere fact that
the petitioner had not earlier objected to the same, cannot be a ground for rejecting
the said contention. In the counter, there is absolutely no denial of delay and
latches. It is pertinent to note that the respondents are bound to specifically deny
the averments. Mere denial for the sake of denial cannot be taken as an answer to
specific allegations raised in the affidavit. When the petitioner had taken a specific
stand that the entire proceedings were vitiated due to lapse of 6 years in initiating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
and concluding the proceedings, the respondents were bound to explain the delay.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P vs.
N.Radhakishan, reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, on the aspect of delay in
disciplinary proceedings held as follows:
“19.....Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed
to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats
justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can
be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper
explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary
proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse
consideration.”
So also, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 Supp SCC 738,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of an explanation for the
inordinate delay it would be unfair to permit the continuation of the disciplinary
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
12. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Union of India and
another Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and another, reported in 2005 (2)
CTC 169, held that, “ The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have
no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in
proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come
in the way of Government to continue with the enquiry any further.”
I am therefore of the view that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the
impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire
disciplinary proceedings were also vitiated for the procedural lapses in conducting
the disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that it is the bounden duty of the
respondent/ employer to first lead evidence against the charged employee and
thereafter, provide opportunity to the employee to cross-examine the witnesses of
the employer. Only thereafter, the employee would be required to explain and lead
evidence rebutting the evidence produced against him. Useful reference in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
State of Uttaranchal and others vs. Kharak Singh (2008 (8) SCC 236). On the
facts of this case it is seen that IV Annexures were attached to the charge memo;
Annexure III related to the documents relied on by the employer and in Annexure
IV relating to the list of witnesses, the marking was “NIL”. When the respondents
relied on certain documents, it was incumbent on them to mark and prove the
same through witnesses. Therefore in the absence of witnesses, the documents
could not have been proved. From the records, it is seen from the enquiry report,
which is annexed in the type set of papers, that the enquiry officer had merely
referred to the charges and the explanation given by the petitioner and his own
conclusions for rejecting the same. From the enquiry officer's report, it is clear that
no witnesses were examined and no documents were filed by the respondent's.
The enquiry officer based on the charges, and the explanation given by the
petitioner to the same, recorded his conclusions. In absence of any evidence by
the employer, either oral or documentary, to establish the charges against the
petitioner, merely on the basis of the petitioners explanation alone the charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
st
could not have been held “proved”. It is further seen that, in the letter of the 1
respondent calling for explanation from the petitioner against the enquiry report, it
was stated as follows:
“The undersigned is directed to enclose a copy of the
report of the Inquiry Officer appointed to inquiry into the charges
framed in the Government letter / Memo cited against Thiru
B.Charles Prabhakaran, Assistant Director, Commissionerate for
Welfare of the Differently Abled, Chennai (under suspension).
2. On a careful consideration of the report of the Inquiry
Officer aforesaid, the Government/ undersigned agree(s) with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer in so far as it relates to the charge
Nos.1 to 5 and for the reasons stated in the Annexure to this Letter
holds that charge Nos.1 to 5 which the inquiry officer has held as
proved.
3. Thiru B.Charles Prabhakaran is hereby given an
opportunity of making further representation on the findings on the
charges referred to in para 2 above.
4. If the said Thiru B.Charles Prabhakaran fails to submit
his further representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this letter it will be presumed that he has no representation to make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
and further action will be taken on merits of the case.
5. The receipt of this letter should be acknowledged.”
From a reading of the aforesaid letter calling for explanation on the enquiry
officer's report, it is clear that the respondent predetermined the issue by holding
that charges 1 to 5 were proved. Therefore the issuance of the letter was, as
rightly contended by the petitioner's counsel, a mere formality. I therefore find
that the disciplinary proceedings suffer from procedural lapses.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order was
vitiated for not furnishing the copy of the report of the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, which was relied on by the respondents in the impugned order. I find
force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.
15. In the impugned order, the respondent relied on the report submitted by
the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. When the respondent relied on the
said report, in all fairness, he ought to have given a copy of the report to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
petitioner. A document secured behind the back of the delinquent employee cannot
be relied on. The petitioner was entitled to a copy of the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission's report and non furnishing of the same to the petitioner,
moreso, when the same is relied in the impugned order, amounts to gross violation
of principles of natural justice. I therefore find that the impugned order cannot be
sustained on this ground also.
16. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the impugned
order deserves to be set aside, on the grounds that it is non speaking order and
lacks application of mind, for procedural lapses and unexplained and inordinate
delay of 6 years, in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.
For all the above reasons, I find merit in the writ petition and hence, the
same is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dsn
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department,
Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
N.MALA,J.
dsn
Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.1851 of 2021
Order Pronounced on 17.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:12 pm )
