Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2586 (MAD)

C. Chellaswamy v. Government of Tamilnadu

2012-06-21

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. The petitioner, in W.P.No.29536 of 2011, has stated that he had joined in service, as an Assistant Agricultural Officer, through the employment exchange. 3. The petitioner, in W.P.No.29623 of 2011, has stated that he had joined in service, as an Agricultural Officer, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in the year, 1986. 4. While so, charge memos, dated 24.10.2002, had been served on them, by the second respondent, alleging that they had misappropriated a sum of Rs.10,783.50, along with certain other persons, by preparing bogus records relating to the distribution of sprayers and Tarpaulins, to the farmers, under the subsidy scheme. Even though they had refuted the charges levelled against them, an enquiry had been conducted. The enquiry had been concluded in the year, 2003. However, the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioners, till date. While so, the first respondent had served show cause notices, dated 23.6.2006, asking the petitioners to submit their explanations to the said show cause notices, as the first respondent was disagreeing with the views of the enquiry officer. The petitioners had submitted their explanations to the show cause notices issued by the first respondent, on 10.12.2006 and 11.12.2006, respectively. However, no final orders had been passed for more than eight years from the date of the completion of the enquiry. As a result, the petitioners had been denied their promotions due to them, to the posts of Agriculture Officer and Assistant Director of the Agriculture, respectively. Therefore, the petitioners had submitted several representations, to the first respondent, to grant them the promotions due to them. 5. It has been further stated that the alleged occurrence, said to have taken place during the year, 1993-94. However, the charge memos had been issued, only on 24.10.2002, even though the enquiry had been completed in the year, 2003 and the enquiry report is said to have been submitted in the year, 2004. Thereafter, show cause notices had been issued in the year, 2006, asking the petitioners to show cause as to why the charges levelled against the petitioners should not be held as proved. Thereafter, show cause notices had been issued in the year, 2006, asking the petitioners to show cause as to why the charges levelled against the petitioners should not be held as proved. The undue delay caused on the part of the respondents, in initiating action against the petitioners and in completing the same, had caused undue hardship and mental agony to the petitioners, resulting in the denial of their promotions to the higher posts. Therefore, the impugned charge memos, dated 24.10.2002, and the show cause notices, dated 23.6.2006, issued to the petitioners, are arbitrary, illegal and void. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (2008 (3) CTC 781) in support of his contention that an inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against a person, and the extraordinary delay in concluding the proceedings, would vitiate such proceedings. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that, based on certain charges levelled against the petitioners, by way of charge memos, dated 24.10.2002, an enquiry had been held, in respect of the charges levelled against them. Even though the charges had been held as not proved, the impugned show cause notices, dated 23.6.2006, had been issued to the petitioners, by the first respondent, asking them to submit explanations as to why the charges ought not to be held as proved. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to submit their explanations to the show cause notices, dated 23.6.2006. Instead they have challenged the same, before this Court, by way of writ petitions, without having sufficient reasons to do so. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned charge memos, dated 24.10.2002, and the show cause notices, dated 23.6.2006, issued by the first respondent cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. 9. 9. The alleged occurrence, based on which charge memos had been issued, is said to have taken place during the year, 1993-94. Thereafter, the charge memos had been issued in the year, 2002, after a lapse of nearly eight years. No proper explanation has been given for such delay. Further, in the enquiry conducted, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioners, it had been held that the said charges had not been proved. The enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioners. However, the first respondent had issued the show cause notices, in the year 2006, after nearly three years after the completion of the enquiry, in the year 2003, asking the petitioners to show cause, as to why the charges levelled against them should not be held as proved. The delay caused in issuing the show cause notices had not been explained. As such, the impugned charge memos, dated 24.10.2002, and the show cause notices, dated 23.6.2006, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2011 are closed.