Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary/ vs V.Palanikumar on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
W.A.(MD) No.94 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 28.01.2025
Pronounced on 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.(MD) No.94 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.617 of 2025
1.The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Ezhilgam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District, Madurai. ...Appellants
Vs.
V.Palanikumar ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.9901 of 2024, dated 03.07.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Visvalingam
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
For the delinquency that the respondent herein had issued a patta
transfer order on 10.09.2014 in the name of a dead person, based on the
recommendation of the Village Administrative Officer and without
verification of the records, charges came to be framed against him on
01.02.2024, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The challenge to the charge memo before
the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.9901 of 2024 was allowed on
03.07.2024, predominantly on the ground that there is an inordinate
delay of ten years in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, which is
against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005
(4) CTC 403, as well as the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.144,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated
08.06.2007, which directs completion of the disciplinary proceedings
before three months of the employee's retirement. In the instant case, the
respondent was due to retire on 30.06.2024, when charges came to be
initiated against him on 01.02.2024 and was kept pending for more than
three months.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of P.V.Mahadevan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(supra), had relied upon two of its own judgments in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and Another reported in 1990 Supp.
SCC 738, in which there was an inordinate delay of over twelve years in
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, as well as in the case of State
of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, where such
delay was more than ten years. By relying on these two decisions, it was
held that such commencement of the departmental proceedings, after an
inordinate delay without any explanation, would vitiate the departmental
proceedings itself and would also cause serious prejudice to the
concerned Government employee. Following P.V.Mahadevan's case
(supra), this Court, in numerous cases, have quashed charge memos on
the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the
departmental proceedings.
3. The Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.144, dated
08.06.2007, which regulates disciplinary actions against Government
servants, who are due to retire during the pendency of a departmental
proceedings. In the said Government Order, it had been recorded that
when an irregularity or an offence committed by the Government servant
comes to notice within a period of three months prior to the date of
retirement, the disciplinary authority shall process the case on war-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
footing and take a decision in one way or the other. It was also further
ordered therein that any failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to
issue final orders, three months before the date of retirement of a
delinquent officer, will be viewed seriously and will also entail severe
action to be initiated against the officials responsible for dragging on the
case to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned.
4. In the instant case, the delinquency is alleged to have been
committed by the respondent herein on 10.09.2014. It is the case of the
appellants that the respondent had failed to verify the records before
transferring the patta in favour of a dead person based on the
recommendation of the Village Administrative Officer. It is also their
case that a criminal case was registered by the Directorate of Vigilance
and Anti Corruption against the respondent herein in F.I.R.No.1 of 2017
dated 05.05.2017.
5. The stand taken by the appellants herein appears to be on a
misconception of facts. In the criminal case registered in F.I.R.No.1 of
2017, the respondent's name was dropped and the concerned Village
Administrative Officer alone was shown as an accused. Even otherwise,
when the F.I.R. was registered in the year 2017, there is absolutely no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
explanation as to why the appellants had waited for ten years to frame
charges against the respondent, that too at the verge of his retirement.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P.V.Mahadevan's case (supra) and the guidelines of the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 08.06.2007, the order of the learned single Judge,
quashing the F.I.R. cannot be found fault with.
7. Accordingly, there are no merits in the present Writ Appeal and
hence, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [A.D.M.C., J]
17 .02.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
