Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department v. M. Subramanian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 03..07..2008C O R A MThe Honourable Mr. A.K. Ganguly, Chief JusticeandThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim KalifullaWrit Appeal No.587 of 20081.Government of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by Secretary to Government,Environment and Forests Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Panagal Buildings, Chennai-15.3.The District Forest Officer,Kallakurichi Division,Kallakurichi... Appellants/Respondents versusM. Subramanian.. Respondent/PetitionerPrayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated29.8.2007 made in W.P. No.18417 of 2007.WP.No.18417/07 :This WP filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issue of a "Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus" to call for the records relating to (1)Pro.No.B1/13070/07-1, dated 30.03.2007 of the SecondRespondent, placing the petitioner under suspension, (2)C.No.G/2158/2006, dated 30.03.2007 of the Second Respondent,not permitting the petitioner to retire on 31.03.2007 A.N. and(3) charge memo in ROC.No.6502/98 pa and charge sheet 21/98pa, dated 14.11.1998 of the third respondent, quash the sameand issue consequential directions to the Respondents topermit the petitioner to retire from service on 31.03.2007A.N., without any condition with all consequential benefitsand to disburse to the petitioner the retirement andpensionary benefits with 12% interest per annum for delayedpayment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : Mr. K. Rajasekar, Govt. Advocate Mr. S.N. KirubanandamFor Respondents : Mr. M. RaviJ U D G M E N T( Delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice )Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has beenfiled by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Principal Chief Conservatorof Forests and the District Forest Officer impugning an order of thelearned Judge of the writ court dated 29.8.2007, by which the learnedJudge was pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the departmentalproceeding initiated by the appellants against the respondent herein.The material facts of the case are that some charges were levelledagainst the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, in May, 1997 and acharge memo was issued on 20.11.1998. To that, the writ petitioner gavean explanation on 9.2.1999. Thereafter, there was an enquiry. TheEnquiry Officer filed his report on 30.5.2000 and the same wascommunicated to the writ petitioner on 14.8.2000. The writ petitionerthen made a representation on 15.9.2000. But since then, the matter waskept pending with the authority and no final order was passed even whenthe writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge of the writ courton 29.8.2007. Therefore, for seven years, no final order was passed inrespect of the aforesaid departmental enquiry.2. It may be noted in this connection that the departmental enquirywas initiated against the writ petitioner just on the eve of hisretirement and the writ petitioner was allegedly suspended from serviceon the date of his superannuation. It appears that before the learnedJudge of the writ court, no explanation was offered by the presentappellants explaining the delay in the matter of conclusion of theenquiry for a period of seven years. Learned counsel for the respondentsubmits that no counter was filed by the appellants before the learnedJudge of the writ court. Therefore, any explanation for such grossdelay was not before the learned Judge. On these facts, the learnedJudge held and in our view, rightly that a person cannot be kept underperpetual mental agony by the authorities by not passing the final orderfor a period of seven years. The learned Judge also found that on thedate of superannuation, the writ petitioner was placed under suspensionand the suspension order was also prolonged. As such, the learned Judgewas pleased to set aside the suspension order and also the departmentalproceeding in view of such inordinate delay. Before us also, noexplanation has been offered even in the stay petition, for the delay ofseven years in passing the final order. The only so called explanationin paragraph 5 of the stay petition runs as follows :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "I submit that Thiru. A.S. Singaravelu, AssistantConservator of Forests, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. TheEnquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 30.5.2000.The respondent has received the copy of the Enquiry Officer'sReport on 15.9.2000 and submitted his final explanation on15.9.2000, 18.5.2001 and 9.9.2002. The explanations of therespondent along with the parawise remarks was sent toConservator of Forests, Dharmapuri in Kallakurichi DFO's Ref.No.6502/98/E dated 23.11.2000. As the case is complicatedissue, involving valuable Government property worth overRs.20.77 lakhs, several queries were raised at differentlevels and were clarified as detailed."A similar stand has been in Ground No.4 of the Memorandum of Grounds ofAppeal, which is set out below :-"The learned Judge failed to note that there was no delayon the part of the appellants in conducting the enquiry andthe delay has occurred only after the enquiry was completedand after the filing of enquiry report. The learned Judgefailed to note that the delay in passing final orders was dueto the involvement of huge amount to the tune of Rs.20.77lakhs which ought to be recovered from the respondent herein.Due to the involvement of huge amount due to the Government,several queries were raised at various levels, which ought tobe clarified before passing final orders."On a combined reading of the averments made in the stay petition and thegrounds taken in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, this Court has toreach an inescapable conclusion that there is no reason for the delay ofseven years in passing the final order. 3. Apart from that, have looked into the records. The chargesframed against the writ petitioner are totally vague. The charges areset out hereunder :-"Charge : 1Negligence of duty and not handed over 4703.450 kg ofSandalwood and caused loss to Government.Charge : 2Not handed over the Government records and forest produceand caused loss to Government.Charge : 3 Not handed over the valuable sandalwood by sustainingloss to Government and dereliction of duty.."Though this question of vagueness in charges was not canvassed beforethe writ court, but sitting in appeal, we can look into the recordssince this is a certioari proceeding and we can find out whether theDepartmental proceeding was proceeding on a legal and valid basis. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Looking into the records, we find that on such vague charges, nodepartmental proceeding can be held inasmuch as no one can defend suchvague charges. This aspect has been considered by the Honourable ApexCourt in the decision rendered in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. Stateof West Bengal reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 752 [see para.4] : "4. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take actionhave to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or chargeswhich have to be communicated to the person charged togetherwith a statement of the allegations on which each charge isbased and any other circumstance which it is proposed to betaken into consideration in passing orders has also to bestated. This Rule embodies a principle which is one of thebasic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity fordefending oneself. If a person is not told clearly anddefinitely what the allegations are on which the chargespreferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, byprojecting his own imagination, discover all the facts andcircumstances that may be in the contemplation of theauthorities to be established against him.... The entire proceedings show a complete disregard ofFundamental Rule 55 in so far as it lays down in almostmandatory terms that the charges must be accompanied by astatement of allegations. We have no manner of doubt that theappellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity ofdefending himself by reason of the charges being altogethervague and indefinite and the statement of allegationscontaining the material facts and particulars not having beensupplied to him. In this situation, for the above reasonalone, the trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing thesuit."Following the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case ofSawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 995,held that where a departmental enquiry entails consequences like loss ofjob, which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fairplay inaction in respect of an order involving adverse and penal consequencesof an employee, and the learned Judges held that the charges must beclear and specific; otherwise, it will be difficult for the employee tomeet the charges [see para.14] :"14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that thecharges were vague and it was difficult to meet the chargesfairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and didnot at all bring home the guilt of the accused."The learned Judges also held that mere participation in the enquiry bythe employee does not cure the defect of vague charges [see para.15] : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "15. Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for therespondent, contended that no allegations had been made beforethe enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the chargeswere vague. In fact the appellant had participated in theenquiry. That does not by itself exonerate the department tobring home the charges."The aforesaid principles in Surath Chandra Chakravarty's case and SawaiSingh's case have also been followed subsequently by the HonourableSupreme Court in the case of Transport Corporation, Madras-5 vs. A.Radhakrishnamoorthy reported in (1995) 1 S.C.C. 332 [see para.9] :"9. Insofar as the vagueness of the charges is concernedwe find that it deserves acceptance. It is asserted by ShriVaidyanathan, learned counsel for the respondent that exceptthe memo of charges dated 4-6-1989, no other particulars ofcharges or supporting particulars were supplied. This assertioncould not be denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. Areading of charges would show that they are not specific andclear. They do not point out clearly the precise charge againstthe respondent, which he was expected to meet. One canunderstand the charges being accompanied by a statement ofparticulars or other statement furnishing the particulars ofthe aforesaid charges but that was not done. The charges aregeneral in nature to the effect that the respondent along witheight other officials indulged in misappropriation byfalsification of accounts. What part did the respondent play,which account did he falsify or help falsify, which amount didhe individually or together with other named personsmisappropriate, are not particularised. The charge is a generalone. It is significant to notice that respondent has beenobjecting to the charges on the ground of vagueness from theearliest stage and yet he was not furnished with theparticulars. It is brought to our notice that respondent’s namewas not included in the schedule appended to GOMs 928 dated 25-4-1988 mentioning the names of officials responsible forfalsification of accounts and misappropriation and that he isalso not made an accused in the criminal proceedings initiatedin that behalf."Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the same principle inthe case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others vs. A. Venkata Raidureported in (2007) 1 S.C.C. 338 [see para.9] : "9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the HighCourt. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if anymaterial is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies ofthat material should be supplied to the party against whom suchenquiry is held. In Charge 1, what is mentioned is that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent violated the orders issued by the Government.However, no details of these orders have been mentioned inCharge 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not bevague but should be specific. The authority should havementioned the date of the GO which is said to have beenviolated by the respondent, the number of that GO, etc. butthat was not done. Copies of the said GOs or directions of theGovernment were not even placed before the enquiry officer.Hence, Charge 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guiltcan be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the HighCourt has found, the respondent only renewed the depositalready made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinionthat the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offencecharged."In view of such overwhelming authority of judicial opinion that no validenquiry can be held on vague charges, this Court is constrained to holdthat the departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent hereinwas bad from the very inception inasmuch as it purported to proceed onvague charges set out hereinabove. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not think that ends of justicewould permit us to interfere with the order which has been passed by thelearned Judge of the writ court. The departmental proceedings have beenrightly quashed by the learned Judge and we reiterate the same, may beon some other grounds. The writ appeal fails and is accordinglydismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1of 2008 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarabTo1. The Secretary to Government,Government of Tamil Nadu,Environment and Forests Department,Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Panagal Buildings, Chennai - 15. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The District Forest Officer,Kallakurichi Division,Kallakurichi.1 cc To Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate, SR.35157.1 cc To The Special Government Pleader (Forest), SR.34663. Writ Appeal No.587 of 2008 CK(CO)RVL 15.07.2008