Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 267 (MAD)

K. Murugesan v. Inspector General of Registration

2013-01-10

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the charge memo issued by the first respondent, dated 21.12.2009 and the proceedings appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquiry him into the charges levelled against the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Registration Department as 'Junior Assistant' in the year 1973. He was promoted as 'Assistant'. Thereafter, further promotion as 'Sub Registrar' was given in the year 1989 and thereafter, he was appointed as 'District Registrar' in the year 2009. While he was working as 'District Registrar' at Tuticorin, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 22.12.2009, wherein a charge was contemplated under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for levying lesser stamp duty with regard to certain registered documents, while he was working as No.1 Joint Sub Registrar at Palayamkottai. After issuing the above said charge memo, the petitioner was permitted to retire by proceedings in GO (D)No.566/Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, dated 31.12.2009. No orders under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules was issued retaining the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to retire, without there-being any order retaining in service. While that being so, the first respondent, through proceedings, dated 19.02.2010 appointed the second respondent as 'Enquiry Officer' to enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was under the impression that the charges levelled against him was dropped, as he was permitted to retire without retaining him in service. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed in pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 19.02.2010, by challenging those proceedings on very many grounds, out of which the main ground raised by the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to proceed against the petitioner, without passing an order under Rule 56(1)(c) to retain him in service. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2009, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules. The Government, vide G.O (D) No.566/Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, dated 31.12.2009, permitted the petitioner to retire. Since, the petitioner was not placed under suspension from service, the question of issuing order under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules does not arise. 4. The Government, vide G.O (D) No.566/Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, dated 31.12.2009, permitted the petitioner to retire. Since, the petitioner was not placed under suspension from service, the question of issuing order under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules does not arise. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as against the very same petitioner, another charge memo was issued, dated 22.12.2009 and the same was also challenged before this court in W.P.(MD)No.11377 of 2010 on the very same ground, namely absence of proceedings under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. 5. It is further submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court, by an order, dated 02.09.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.11377 of 2010 allowed the said writ petition by quashing the said charge memo on the reason that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was without jurisdiction and illegal in the absence of any proceedings passed under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. He has also placed a copy of the order before this court. 6. A perusal of the said order shows that the facts are identical in both the cases, except the date of charge memo. 7. It is further stated that the said order has become final, as the respondents have not challenged the same by way of filing any appeal. The learned Judge in the said order at paragraphs 3 to 6 held as follows:- “3.According to Mr. N.Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after allowing a Government Servant to retire from service, the respondents have no authority to proceed with the enquiry without retaining him in service under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules, and therefore, the continuation of enquiry in pursuant to the impugned charge memo dated 22.12.2009 and the consequential order dated 28.06.2010 are illegal, as per the Order of this court in Kootha Pillai v. Commissioner, Municipal Administration, reported in 2009(1) MLJ 761 . 4. Mr. R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader, fairly submitted that after allowing a Government Servant to retire from service, there cannot be any disciplinary proceedings on the basis of charge memo issued earlier. 5. 4. Mr. R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader, fairly submitted that after allowing a Government Servant to retire from service, there cannot be any disciplinary proceedings on the basis of charge memo issued earlier. 5. This court in the Judgment, referred to above, has held that after allowing a Government Servant to retire from service, there cannot be any condition attached that the retirement would be without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, without retaining the Government Servant in service as per Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. In the case on hand, it is not disputed that no order has been passed retaining the petitioner in service under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, after retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Government and the petitioner, and hence, after retirement, the respondents cannot proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner. Further, in the said Judgment, it has been held that the order allowing a Government Servant to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings is also without jurisdiction and illegal. 6. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner on the basis of charge memo already issued. Therefore, the charge memo dated 22.12.2009 and the consequential letter issued by the first respondent dated 28.06.2010 stand quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 8. As the said order squarely covers the present writ petition also, by following the said order of the learned single Judge, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.