High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 01.10.2007 CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAMW.P. No.8208 of 2006andW.P.M.P. No.9129 of 2006 andW.V.M.P. No.211 of 2007Er. S. Sagayaraj... Petitioner..vs..1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretaryto Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Engineer-in-Chief, WRO & Chief Engineer (General) PWD, PWD Campus, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records ofthe second respondent in Charge Memo No.CII(1)/5527/2003-32 dated25.11.2005 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr. S.T.S. MurthiFor Respondents : Mr. R. Jothimanian, Addl. Govt. PleaderO R D E RChallenging the Charge Memo No.CII(1)/5527/2003-32,dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.11.2005 given by the second respondent, the petitioner hasbrought forth this writ petition. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition andcounter affidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned counselappearing on either side.3. Concededly, the petitioner, who is an AssistantExecutive Engineer, while functioning as Research Officer – I atPublic Works Department Soil Mechanics and Research Division,Chepauk, Chennai, was served with a charge memo dated 25.11.2005issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplineand Appeal) Rules, levelling four charges against him. The gist ofthe four charges is that he had not handed over his section chargesto his successor in a complete form and due to his failure inattending the reconciliation work and to set right the discrepancies,there was a shortage of materials worth about Rs.2,58,521/- and hehad failed to maintain integrity and devotion in his duty. Onservice of charge memo, the petitioner has approached this Court byway of this writ petition to quash the same.4. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel wouldsubmit that a reading of the charge memo would clearly indicate thatthe period was from 14.10.1992 to 29.10.1996. According to thedepartment, the petitioner has not handed over his section charges tothe successor in a complete form. Apart from that, he had failed tosecure the Government materials, which resulted in shortage to thetune of Rs.2,58,521/- and he did not set right the discrepancies andhe had also not attended the reconciliation work and thus, he hadfailed to maintain integrity and devotion in his duty as warrantedunder Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules,1973. 5. In the instant case, when the charges relate to theperiod of 14.10.1992 to 29.10.1996, the instant charge memo,levelling charges against the petitioner, was served upon him on25.11.2005 i.e. after 9 1/2 years and thus, it would be quite devoidof merits and truth. As per the Government orders in G.O. Ms.No.2201dated 9.11.1982 issued by the Public Works Department, a maximumperiod of sixty days is given for the relieving Officer to preparethe list of discrepancies and their value. G.O.3(D) No.38, PublicWorks (E2) department dated 23.5.1997 prescribes procedures to befollowed in respect of shortage of materials/non handing over ofcharges etc, which are pending for more than one month. 6. It is also stated in the said G.O. that thereconciliation of accounts should be done at the time of handing overof charge . In the instant case, though the charges levelled againstthe petitioner pertains to the year of 1992-1996, there is a long https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lapse of 9 1/2 years and thus, the inordinate delay in initiatingthe disciplinary proceedings would suffice to quash the charge memoissued to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learnedcounsel relied on the decision reported in the case of MAHADEVAN,P.V. v. M.D., TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD (2005(4) CTC 403).7. Contrary to the above, learned counsel appearing for therespondents would submit that it is true that all the chargeslevelled against the petitioner pertains to the period between 1992and 1996, but the charges levelled against him were grave. Though somany opportunities were given to him for setting the things right, hedid not avail the said opportunity and the delay was caused only bythe petitioner. Apart from that, due to shifting of headquarters,the material records such as charge papers, work registers and oldM.A.S. accounts under discrepancies as pointed out by the then JuniorEngineer could not be easily traced out. Hence the delay was caused.Thus the delay in initiating the disciplinary action against thepetitioner was neither inordinate nor without any reason, but due tothe aforesaid reasons. Under the circumstances, the departmentshould initiate action against the petitioner and the writ petitionhas got to be dismissed.8. The Court paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made by either side. After looking into the materialsavailable on record, the Court has no option than to quash the chargememo. As could be seen from the records, four charges were levelledagainst the petitioner. The gist of the same is that the petitionerdid not hand over the section charges to his successor in a completeform and due to his alleged failure in attending the reconciliationwork and to set right the discrepancies, there was a shortage ofmaterials worth about Rs.2,58,521/- and thus, he failed to maintainabsolute integrity and devotion in his duty.9. It is pertinent to point out that the very reading ofthe charge memo would clearly indicate that all the allegations madeagainst him is in respect of the period between 1992 and 1996, butthe instant charge memo was served upon him on 25.11.2005 i.e. nearlyafter 9 1/2 years. It is not in controversy that two G.Os. areavailable. One is speaking about the maximum period given to therelieving Officer to prepare the list of discrepancies and other oneis speaking about the procedure to be followed in a case of shortageof materials/non handing over of charge. 10. As per G.O.Ms.No.2201 Public Works Department dated9.11.1982, the stipulated period was sixty days and as per G.O.3(D)No.38 Public Works (E2) department, the stipulated period is onemonth. In the instant case, had the charges of the particularsection was not properly handed over by the petitioner, the relievingOfficer should have prepared a list of discrepancies and found out https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the shortage of materials. While the charge was handed over in themonth of October, 1996, charge memo was served upon him on28.11.2005. Thus, the Court is able to notice the inordinate delay.11. The reasons given by the Department for such inordinatedelay are that the delay was caused by the petitioner; that though somany opportunities were given to the petitioner, he did not avail thesame and that there was a shifting of headquarters and hence thepapers were to be traced. The reasons adduced by the department arequite unsound and unacceptable. 12. Insofar as the first reason is concerned, there is nomaterial available to show that opportunity was given to thepetitioner to set the things right. In the absence of any material,the said contention cannot be accepted. Insofar as the other reasonis concerned, shifting of headquarters that too for a decade in agiven case like this cannot be imagined. Under the circumstances,both the reasons adduced by the Department for the inordinate delaycannot be countenanced. 13. Apart from this, in the instant case, the Court is ofthe considered opinion that the decision of the Apex Court reportedin 2005(4) CTC 403 referred to above relied on by the petitioner issquarely applicable to the instant case. Hence, without anyhesitation, the charge memo has got to be quashed and the same isquashed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently,the connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarssa.To1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretaryto Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Engineer-in-Chief, WRO & Chief Engineer (General) PWD, PWD Campus, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.+1cc to Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Advocate Sr 61217CU (CO)km/11.10.W.P. No.8208 of 2006 andconnected W.P.M.P.and W.V.M.P.