R.Gopal v. The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department

2.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords of 1st respondent relating to the impugned order issued inG.O.(3D) No.17, P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 and quash the same. For Petitioner:Mr.N.Vijay NarayananSenior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents:Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General – IAssisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate W.P.NO.17733 / 2008G.Devadhas ... Petitioner Versus1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Secretary to Government Handloom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department For Saint George, Chennai – 600 009. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1strespondent in G.O.(3D) No.16, P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 and quash thesame as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner:Mr.N.Vijay NarayananSenior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents:Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General – IAssisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate W.P.NO.17768 / 2008R.Gopal... Petitioner Versus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.3.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai – 600 017.5.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai – 600 009.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-3 P&ARDepartment, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quashthe same. For Petitioner:Mr.N.Vijay NarayananSenior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents 1-4:Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General – IAssisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate For Respondent 5:Mr.R.Narayanan W.P.NO.17769 / 2008G.Devadhas... Petitioner Versus1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Secretary to Government Handlooom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.3.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai – 600 017.5.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai – 600 009.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-4 P&ARDepartment, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quashthe same. For Petitioner:Mr.N.Vijay NarayananSenior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents 1-4:Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General – IAssisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate For Respondent 5:Mr.R.Narayanan W.P.NO.17829 / 2008S.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner Versus1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai – 600 017.5.S.Lakshmanan Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai – 600 009.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-5 P&ARDepartment, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quashthe same. For Petitioner:Mr.N.Vijay NarayananSenior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents 1-4:Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Additional Advocate General – IAssisted by Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate For Respondent 5:Mr.R.Narayanan COMMON ORDERThese six writ petitions came to be posted on beingspecially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice vide order dated03.07.2012.2.The three writ petitioners namely R.Gopal, G.Devadhas andS.Vijayalakshmi have filed two writ petitions each, one challengingthe order of suspension and the other challenging the charge memoframed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplineand Appeal) Rules. The following table will show the name of thepetitioners involved and the challenge made:S.No.Case No.Name of thePetitioner Impugned order1W.P.No.17731 /2008R.GopalSuspension - G.O.(3D) No.15,P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.Case No.Name of thePetitioner Impugned order2W.P.No.17768 /2008R.GopalCharge memo dated 27.06.20083W.P.No.17732 /2008S.VijayalakshmiSuspension - G.O.(3D) No.17,P&AR Department, dated27.06.20084W.P.No.17829 /2008S.Vijayalakshmi Charge memo dated 27.06.20085W.P.No.17733 /2008G.Devadhas Suspension - G.O.(3D) No.16,P&AR, dated 27.06.20086W.P.No.17769 /2008G.Devadhas Charge memo dated 27.06.20083.The petitioner R.Gopal at the relevant time was working asUnder Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department. Thepetitioner S.Vijayalakshmi was working as Assistant Section Officerin Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. Likewise, the petitionerG.Devadhas was working as Under Secretary to Government, HandloomHandicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department. 4.These writ petitions were admitted on different dates. Itis stated that during the pendency of the writ petitions, R.Gopal,petitioner in W.P.Nos.17731 and 17768 of 2008 reached the age ofsuperannuation and by a specific order of the Government, he was notallowed to retire from service, as the proceedings are still pending.Similarly, G.Devadhas, petitioner in W.P.Nos.17733 and 17769 of 2008also reached the age of superannuation and he was also not allowed toretire from service. 5.The two petitioners namely G.Devadhas and S.Vijayalakshmiearlier filed two writ petitions being W.P.Nos.14361 and 14377 of2009 seeking for a direction to produce all the documents which arelisted in Annexure-III to the charge memo. That writ petitions wereallowed by this Court on 27.07.2009 by directing the respondents tofurnish the required documents to the petitioners therein in terms oftheir representation made on different dates. 6.It is seen from the records that the petitioners weresuspended from service by the Special Commissioner and Secretary toGovernment, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Thesuspension was made under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules for the gross irregularities andmalpractices committed in the allotment of residential / publicpurpose plots to the members at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, KancheepuramDistrict. It was also stated that an enquiry into the grave chargesis pending and charges have also been framed by letter dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27.06.2008. Similarly, charges have also been framed against each oneof the petitioners. The charges included that the petitioners haveentered into criminal conspiracy with the other Office Bearers of theTamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Limited and privateindividuals and have committed the grave malpractices in theallotment of residential / public purpose plots under the OkkiamThoraipakkam Scheme, in violation of the by-laws of the Society andthe condition stipulated by the Government. They have shownfavouritism by allotting the public purposes plots to the familymembers / relatives / friends of the Office Bearers of the Societyand thereby gained unlawful pecuniary advantages constitutingoffences punishable under Section 120(B) IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988 and they have failed to maintain absolute integrity anddevotion to duty and have acted in the manner unbecoming of themember of the service by violating rule 21 of the Tamil NaduGovernment Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 7.Annexure-II of the charge memo listed out the specificcharges. Annexure-III contains the list of documents, on whichreliance was placed upon and there were as many as 164 documents.Annexure-IV contains the list of witnesses numbering as many as 154.Since the petitioners are facing the same set of allegations, thoughbelong to different Department, power under Rule 9-A of the TamilNadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was invoked, sothat the disciplinary action against the Government servants can betaken in a common proceeding and the Government was declared as thedisciplinary authority for the purpose of common proceeding and theywill be competent to impose penalty under Rule 8 of the Tamil NaduCivil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The procedure inconducting enquiry will be as specified under Rule 17(b) of the TamilNadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 8.Subsequently, the Government passed an order in G.O.(D)No.128, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated27.06.2008, for conducting common proceeding. The petitioners sentrepresentation for revoking the suspension and thereafter fileddetailed explanation in respect of the charge memo given to them.Even before the enquiry could be held, they sent a letter statingthat the Secretary to the Government, Personnel and AdministrativeReforms Department has no competency and jurisdiction to order forenquiry under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplineand Appeal) Rules. 9.Reliance was placed upon a communication dated 26.07.2000sent by the Secretary to Government, Personnel and AdministrativeReforms Department, wherein it was informed that the Secretary to theGovernment of an Administrative Department, while taking aprovisional conclusion in a disciplinary case in the note file,should also approve the related drafts before referring the matter to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Therefore, itwas contended that when more than one Government servants are jointlyinvolved or whose case are interconnected, the competent authorityfor ordering enquiry shall be the immediate higher authority in theDepartment. Therefore, it was contended that R.Gopal, being the UnderSecretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department and beingthe highest authority, any initiation of proceedings will have to bedone only by the Secretary to Government, Labour and EmploymentDepartment and not Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.It is in that view of the matter, these writ petitions came to befiled. 10.Additionally it was contended that the suspension oughtnot to have been made as there was no investigation pending at thetime of suspension. An attempt was also made to contend that thecharges are without basis and similarly placed persons were let out.Thereby there is a case of discrimination on the part of theGovernment in taking action against the petitioners alone. In so faras the defence taken on the merits of the charges as well as thevalidity of the charge memo is concerned and in so far as thepetitioners are given individual replies to the charge memo on01.03.2011 by R.Gopal, 17.09.2011 by G.Devadhas and 27.09.2011 byS.Vijayalakshmi, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits ofthe defence taken by the petitioners and it is for them to defendthemselves in a proper enquiry, in which they will be given ampleopportunity to put forth their defence. 11.The other ground raised namely that the charge memo wasnot framed by a competent authority is concerned, reliance was placedupon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in THE DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, TRICHY RANGE, TRICHY AND OTHERS VS.S.SEETHALAKSHMI AND OTHERS in W.P.Nos.24506 to 24512 of 2003 (decidedon 05.04.2005) wherein Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, came to be interpreted. It was statedin the said case the requirement of law provided under Rule 9-A doesnot get diluted and no other rule can be relied upon for diluting therule. In that case, it was held that all the persons involved werepolice personnel and therefore, Secretary to Government, HomeDepartment is the only authority who could have order jointproceeding under Rule 9-A and not by any inferior. 12.Secondly, reference was made to another judgment of aDivision Bench of this Court in THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITSSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMSDEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER VS. R.RANGANATHAN AND OTHERS in W.A.Nos.1478of 2008 and 266 of 2009 (decided on 05.03.2010) wherein proceedingswere quashed by the Division Bench. Though in the judgment of theDivision Bench in T.Ranganathan's case, the issue is relating tointerpretation of Rule 9-A, the Division Bench did not deal with theaspect and in para 24 it had gone into the said issue as the matter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was disposed of on the question of delay. 13.Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General-Iappearing for the State stated that it is a misnomer call for theSecretary to Labour and Employment Department, who is the authorityto take action. On the other hand, under the Tamil Nadu Generalservice belonging to Class 12, the power of appointment of UnderSecretaries should be made by a panel approved by the Government andit shall be made by the Secretary to Government in-charge ofPersonnel and Administrative Reforms Department. He has also producedthe order to show that R.Gopal, petitioner in W.P.Nos. 17731 and17768 of 2008 was appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.55, Personnel andAdministrative Reforms Department, dated 31.05.2006 and posted towork in the Labour and Employment Department. Therefore, it ismisnomer to state that under Rule 9-A, the wrong Authority has issuedthe Government Order constituting a common proceeding. He alsoreferred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in REGISTRAR OFCOOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MADRAS AND ANOTHER VS. F.X.FERNANDO [1994 (2)SCC 746] wherein it has been held that if the delay in conductinginvestigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wasnot prompt, that could not be blamed on the departmental enquiry. Itwas also held that even a subordinate to the Government initiating acharge memo was held to be valid, even though he did not have anypower to impose the final penalty. 14.Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General-Iappearing for the State also referred to another judgment of theSupreme Court in INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER VS.THAVASIAPPAN [1996 (2) SCC 145] for contending that it is notnecessary that charges should be framed by the authority competent toaward the proposed penalty. 15.The second contention that the respondents have proceededselectively against the petitioners also does not stand to reason, asultimately such an issue shall be gone into only after the enquiriescompleted and any punishment imposed and that too with reliablematerials. Therefore, both the contentions raised by Mr.S.VijayNarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has to fail. Itmust be noted that for the allegation that the suspension was notproperly worded, the Supreme Court in the following two judgments hasheld as follows:SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISEDEPARTMENT VS. L.SRINIVASAN [1996(3)SCC157] "3........ The respondent while working asAssistant Section Officer, Home, Prohibition andExcise Department had been placed under suspension.Departmental inquiry is in process. We are informedthat charge-sheet was laid for prosecution for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offences of embezzlement and fabrication of falserecords etc. and that the offences and the trial ofthe case is pending. The Tribunal had set aside thedepartmental enquiry and quashed the charge on theground of delay in initiation of disciplinaryproceedings. In the nature of the charges, it wouldtake a long time to detect embezzlement andfabrication of false records which should be done insecrecy. It is not necessary to go into the meritsand record any finding on the charge levelled againstthe charged officer since any finding recorded bythis Court would gravely prejudice the case of theparties at the enquiry and also at the trial.Therefore, we desist from expressing any opinion onmerit or recording any of the contentions raised bythe counsel on either side. Suffice it to state thatthe Administrative Tribunal has committed grossesterror in its exercise of the judicial review. Themember of the Administrative Tribunal appears to haveno knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service lawand exercised power as if he is an appellate forumdehors the limitation of judicial review. This is onesuch instance where a member had exceeded his powerof judicial review in quashing the suspension orderand charges even at the threshold. We are comingacross such orders frequently putting heavy pressureon this Court to examine each case in detail. It ishigh time that it is remedied."D.G. AND I.G. OF POLICE VS. K.RATNAGIRI [1990(3)SCC60]7....... The Rule 13(1) empowers the authorityto keep the respondent under suspension pendinginvestigation or enquiry into the criminal chargeswhere such suspension is necessary in the publicinterest. When the first information report isissued, the investigation commences and indeed it hascommenced when the respondent was kept undersuspension. The order of suspension cannot,therefore, be said to be beyond the scope of Rule 13(1) merely because it has used the word ‘prosecution’instead of investigation into the charges against therespondent. A wrong wording in the order does nottake away the power if it is otherwise available. TheTribunal seems to have ignored this well acceptedprinciple."(Emphasis added) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.Similarly in respect of procedure for invalidating thecharge memo came to be considered by the Supreme Court in thefollowing judgments.(i) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BRAHM DATT SHARMA[1987 (2) SCC 179]"9. The High Court was not justified inquashing the show cause notice. When a show causenotice is issued to a government servant under astatutory provision calling upon him to show cause,ordinarily the government servant must place his casebefore the authority concerned by showing cause andthe courts should be reluctant to interfere with thenotice at that stage unless the notice is shown tohave been issued palpably without any authority oflaw. ‘The purpose of issuing show cause notice is toafford opportunity of hearing to the governmentservant and once cause is shown it is open to theGovernment to consider the matter in the light of thefacts and submissions placed by the governmentservant and only thereafter a final decision in thematter could be taken. Interference by the courtbefore that stage would be premature, the High Courtin our opinion ought not have interfered with theshow cause notice."(ii) SPECIAL DIRECTOR VS. MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE [2004(3) SCC 440] "5.This Court in a large number of cases hasdeprecated the practice of the High Courtsentertaining writ petitions questioning legality ofthe show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposedand retarding investigative process to find actualfacts with the participation and in the presence ofthe parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied thatthe show-cause notice was totally non est in the eyeof the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of theauthority to even investigate into facts, writpetitions should not be entertained for the mereasking and as a matter of routine, and the writpetitioner should invariably be directed to respondto the show-cause notice and take all standshighlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is ajurisdictional issue which can even be urged by therecipient of the notice and such issues also can beadjudicated by the authority issuing the very noticeinitially, before the aggrieved could approach the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ court. Further, when the court passes an interimorder it should be careful to see that the statutoryfunctionaries specially and specifically constitutedfor the purpose are not denuded of powers andauthority to initially decide the matter and ensurethat ultimate relief which may or may not be finallygranted in the writ petition is not accorded to thewrit petitioner even at the threshold by the interimprotection granted."(iii) UNION OF INDIA VS. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA[2006 (12) SCC 28]"13. It is well settled by a series ofdecisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ liesagainst a charge-sheet or show-cause notice videExecutive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v.Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. GhulamGhouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, Stateof U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc.14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petitionshould not be entertained against a mere show-causenotice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writpetition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to anycause of action, because it does not amount to anadverse order which affects the rights of any partyunless the same has been issued by a person having nojurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible thatafter considering the reply to the show-cause noticeor after holding an enquiry the authority concernedmay drop the proceedings and/or hold that the chargesare not established. It is well settled that a writpetition lies when some right of any party isinfringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheetdoes not infringe the right of anyone. It is onlywhen a final order imposing some punishment orotherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, thatthe said party can be said to have any grievance.15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionaryjurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing ashow-cause notice or charge-sheet.16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptionalcases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet orshow-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is whollyillegal. However, ordinarily the High Court shouldnot interfere in such a matter."(iv) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES VS.SACHINDRA NATH PANDEY [1995 (3) SCC 134] "7. On a perusal of charges, we find that thecharges are very serious. We are, therefore, notinclined to close the matter only on the ground thatabout 16 years have elapsed since the date ofcommencement of disciplinary proceedings, moreparticularly when the appellant alone cannot be heldresponsible for this delay..............."(v) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISEDEPARTMENT VS. L. SRINIVASAN [1996 (3) SCC 157] "3.......We are informed that charge-sheet waslaid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlementand fabrication of false records etc. and that theoffences and the trial of the case is pending. TheTribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry andquashed the charge on the ground of delay ininitiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the natureof the charges, it would take a long time to detectembezzlement and fabrication of false records whichshould be done in secrecy. It is not necessary to gointo the merits and record any finding on the chargelevelled against the charged officer since anyfinding recorded by this Court would gravelyprejudice the case of the parties at the enquiry andalso at the trial. Therefore, we desist fromexpressing any opinion on merit or recording any ofthe contentions raised by the counsel on either side.Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunalhas committed grossest error in its exercise of thejudicial review. The member of the AdministrativeTribunal appears to have no knowledge of thejurisprudence of the service law and exercised poweras if he is an appellate forum dehors the limitationof judicial review. This is one such instance where amember had exceeded his power of judicial review inquashing the suspension order and charges even at thethreshold. We are coming across such ordersfrequently putting heavy pressure on this Court toexamine each case in detail. It is high time that itis remedied."(vi) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V. APPALA SWAMY[2007 (14) SCC 49] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "12. So far as the question of delay inconcluding the departmental proceedings as against adelinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, nohard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. Eachcase must be determined on its own facts. Theprinciples upon which a proceeding can be directed tobe quashed on the ground of delay are:(1) where by reason of the delay, the employercondoned the lapses on the part of the employee;(2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee.Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made outby the employee before the inquiry officer.13. This aspect of the matter is now squarelycovered by the decisions of this Court in Secy. toGovt., Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan;P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India; Registrar, Coop.Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey.14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent, however, placed strong reliance on adecision of this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union ofIndia. That case was decided on its peculiar facts.In that case, even the basic material on whichdepartmental proceedings could be initiated wasabsent. The departmental proceedings were initiatedafter 6 years and continued for a period of 7 years.In that fact situation, it was held that theappellant therein was prejudiced.15. Bijlani, therefore, is not an authority and,in fact, as would appear from the decision in P.D.Agrawal for the proposition that only on the groundof delay the entire proceedings can be quashedwithout considering the other relevant factorstherefor."17.In view of the above, this Court do not find any casemade out to interfere with the impugned orders of suspension andcharge memo and hence, all these writ petitions stand dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Deputy Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TKTo1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.3.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Secretary to Government Handloom Handicrafts Textiles and Khadi Department For Saint George, Chennai – 600 009. 5.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.6.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai – 600 017.7. The Special Officer Tamil Nadu Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society Chennai – 600 009.1 cc to Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR.No.45702+1 cc to Government Pleader SR.45480 COMMON ORDER MADE INW.P.NOS.17731, 17732, 17733, 1776817769 AND 17829 OF 2008GR {CO}TP/7.8.2012.