✦ High Court of India · 24 Oct 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 24 Oct 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

24 Oct 2024

Bench

N.ANAND VENKATESH

Length

1,799 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.10.2024 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024andW.M.P.Nos.24499, 24501, 24505, 24508, 24511 & 24512 of 2024K.Baskar.. Petitioner(in all cases)Vs.1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Addl. Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration & Disaster, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005... Respondents(in all cases)Prayer in W.P.No.22490 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Impugned Charge Memo dated 11.06.2024 in C.M.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024Prayer in W.P.No.22494 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to Impugned Order dated 28.06.2024 in G.O.(2D).No.165, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Services Wing, Ser.2(2) Section passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service with all terminal benefits etc., with effect from 30.06.2024.Prayer in W.P.No.22499 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Impugned Charge Memo dated 27.06.2024 in Ku.Ku.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.(In all cases):For Petitioner:Mr.M.MarudhachalamFor Respondents:Mr.P.AnandhakumarGovernment AdvocateC O M M O N O R D E RThe issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 20242.W.P.No.22490 of 2024 has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 11.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent. W.P.No.22499 of 2024 has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 27.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent. W.P.No.22494 of 2024 has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.06.2024, whereby the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service pursuant to the order of suspension passed on 26.06.2024.3.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services in the Revenue Department in the year 1984 as Junior Assistant. Subsequently, he was promoted as an Assistant in the year 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2006. In the year 2009, the petitioner was promoted as Tahsildar. He held this post till 2013 and in the year 2013, the petitioner was appointed as Special Tahsildar - Land Acquisition. Ultimately, in the year 2015, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector.4.A charge memo dated 11.06.2024 came to be issued against the petitioner to initiate proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the ground that the petitioner failed to take action to file appeal against the orders passed by the Hosur Sub Court in the year 2007 enhancing the compensation granted in five L.A.O.P. cases and thereby caused financial loss to the Government.5.The petitioner was placed under suspension by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 26.06.2024 on the ground that the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner and also on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending. Thereafter, the second charge memo dated 27.06.2024 came to be issued against the petitioner to proceed further under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner before the competent Court.6.The petitioner was attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. In the light of the order of suspension passed on 26.06.2024 and the pending charge memos, the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 28.06.2024 did not permit the petitioner to retire from service.4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 20247.All the above proceedings have been put to challenge in these writ petitions.8.Individual counter affidavit has been filed in the above writ petitions. The respondents have justified the issuance of two charge memos against the petitioner and also the suspension order issued against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner was about to reach the age of superannuation, the ultimate order was passed not permitting the petitioner to retire from service, since the disciplinary proceedings were pending and the criminal cases were pending. In view of the same, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of all these writ petitions.9.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.10.This Court will first take up the charge memo that was issued by the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2024 for consideration.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 202411.The above charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner while holding the post of Deputy Tahsildar at Krishnagiri District, failed to take action by filing appeal against the orders passed by the Sub Court in five L.A.O.P. cases dated 22.01.2007 and 31.01.2007, whereby the compensation was enhanced and therefore, it resulted in financial loss to the Government.12.It is clear from the above charge memo that the order passed by the competent Court pertains to the year 2007. On carefully going through the records, it is seen that the petitioner was only holding the post of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar for the period from 29.06.2006 to 23.08.2009. Looking at the duties and responsibilities of a Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, it is seen that totally 28 Items have been listed and none of it pertains to filing of appeal against the order passed in land acquisition cases. It is therefore clear that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and could not have initiated any proceedings for filing appeal against the order passed by the Court in the L.A.O.P. cases, whereby the compensation was enhanced.6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 202413.Apart from the above, this incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007 and whereas, the charge memo came to be issued in the year 2024 after nearly 17 years. There are absolutely no reasons assigned as to why there was such an exorbitant delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The delay by itself is not a ground to interfere with the charge memo. However, unexplained delay will prove fatal for a charge memo. Hence, the charge memo issued in the year 2024 for an incident which took place in the year 2007 cannot be sustained on the ground of unexplained delay.14.The other ground that has been raised is that even if the allegations made in the charge memo are taken to be correct, the same does not warrant initiation of proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This Court has repeatedly held that whenever proceedings are initiated under Rule 17(b), it must involve a mental element or a moral turpitude. In the case in hand, the allegation is that appeal was not filed against the order passed in the L.A.O.P. cases. This allegation at the best will only result 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024in negligence which does not warrant initiating proceedings for major penalty under Rule 17(b).15.For all the above reasons, the charge memo dated 11.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained and it has to be interfered by this Court.16.This Court will now go into the second charge memo dated 27.06.2024 issued against the petitioner. This charge memo was issued on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner before the competent Court. Hence, it is clear that the charge memo itself is based on the criminal proceedings that were pending and not on any other ground.17.There were two criminal proceedings in which the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. The first case is the proceedings in C.C.No.556 of 2019 which was pending before the learned Judicial Magisrate No.II, Krishnagiri. After a full fledged trial, by judgment dated 30.01.2024, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner from all charges 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024and thereby, the criminal proceedings itself came to an end.18.The next criminal case pertains to the case in C.C.No.81 of 2024 which was pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri. This proceedings became a subject matter of challenge in Crl.O.P.No.14282 of 2024 before this Court. This Court by order dated 29.07.2024, found that the offence has not been made out and accordingly,the proceedings itself was quashed.19.In view of the above, the second criminal case that was put against the petitioner also came to an end. Thus, the second charge memo that was issued based on the pending criminal proceedings can no longer survive, since both the criminal proceedings ended up in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the second charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024, is also liable to be interfered by this Court.20.The order of suspension dated 26.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024not permitting the petitioner to retire from service was based on the above two charge memos and the criminal case that were pending against the petitioner. Since, the criminal proceedings have ended in acquittal and this Court is inclined to interfere with both the charge memos, these orders are also liable to be quashed by this Court.21.The upshot of the above discussion is that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2024 in C.M.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024 in Ku.Ku.No.Ser.2(5)/4101/2017 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.06.2024 in G.O.(2D).No.165, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Services Wing, Ser.2(2) Section are hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service effective from 30.06.2024. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be entitled for all service and monetary benefits. Proceedings shall be issued in this regard by the 1st respondent within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 202422.In the result, all these Writ Petitions stands allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.24.10.2024 krkIndex: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoTo1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Addl. Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration & Disaster, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 2024N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.krkW.P.Nos.22490, 22494 & 22499 of 202424.10.202412/12

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India