Chennai 10.3. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, Erode 3 v. N.Ponniah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 06.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.P.No.2204 of 2003 1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, N.V.Natarajan Maaligai, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.3. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, Erode 3. .. Petitioners Versus1. N.Ponniah, Co-operative Sub Registrar (Under Suspension) No.53, Vaithyanathapuram, Thathaneri, Madurai 18.2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of TheConstitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorari to callfor the records of the Tribunal, the second respondentherein pertaining to the orders made in O.A.No.1768 of 1999dated 02.11.2001 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.Govt.PleaderFor R1 : Mr.S.M.SubramaniamO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)The State has come forward with this writ petitionchallenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunaldated 02.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.1768 of 1999. The firstrespondent was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar. Hewas to retire on 30.04.1992. He was not permitted to retire,in view of pending disciplinary proceedings against him.The charge memo itself came to be issued only on 31.03.1998i.e. after six long years, after the due date of retirement.The occurrence with reference to which the charge memo wasissued pertain to the year 1989-1990. Therefore, countedfrom that year, it took eight long years for the petitionersto issue the charge memo. The allegation was that as aSpecial Officer of some of the Societies, he committedcertain irregularities in the purchase of materials for theSocieties. The first respondent filed the OriginalApplication itself only in the year 1999 seeking to quashthe charge memo issued against him. The OriginalApplication came to be disposed of only on 02.11.2001 andtill that date, no further development had taken place inthe disciplinary proceedings initiated against the firstrespondent. In fact, the first respondent stated before theTribunal that when he wanted to peruse the records, he wasinformed by the Department that they were searching for thedocuments and after tracing the same, they will intimate thefirst respondent. It was in the above stated circumstances,the Tribunal took a view that when more than ten years hadlapsed from the date of the occurrence, it would be whollyinequitable and unjustifiable to allow the petitioners tokeep the charge memo alive and thereby hang the democlesword over the head of the first respondent for anindefinite period. The Tribunal after stating that theHon'ble Supreme Court and High Court have frowned upon suchtotal inaction displayed on the part of the authorities foran indefinite period in proceeding with the disciplinarymatters, held that the impugned charge memo cannot beallowed to stand. The Tribunal therefore, set aside thecharge memo and directed the petitioners to settle allterminal benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Though Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special GovernmentPleader would attempt to contend that the charges were ofserious nature and therefore, the order of the Tribunalshould be interfered with, we are unable to countenance sucha plea. Apart from what has been observed by the Tribunal,even in the affidavit filed in support of this writpetition, we do not find any anxiety shown in hastening thedisciplinary proceedings against the first respondent. Infact, even as on date i.e. July 2007, the fact remains thatno progress had been made in respect of the charge memodated 31.03.1998 issued to the first respondent. The illeffect of all the above factors is that in respect of anincident which happened in the year 1989-1990, thepetitioners have displayed supine indifference for the pastnearly 17 years, during which period not even the copies ofthe documents were made available to the first respondent bythe petitioners. In spite of such a lethargic attitudedisplayed by the petitioners, if they were to be permittedto proceed with the charge memo as against the firstrespondent, we are of the considered opinion that it wouldresult in putting a premium on the total inaction andindifferent attitude displayed by the petitioners in takingdisciplinary action against the first respondent. After thedue date of retirement of the first respondent, more than 15years have gone by and that by itself would act assufficient punishment for the first respondent. In thiscontext, it will be more appropriate to refer to thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005(4)CTC403 [P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board],wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.10, hasnoted that more than ten years delay involved in initiatingthe disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo byitself would render the departmental proceedings vitiated.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio in suchcases in paragraph No.14, which reads as under:"14. Under the circumstances, we are of theopinion that allowing the respondent to proceedfurther with the departmental proceedings at thisdistance of time will be very prejudicial to theappellant. Keeping a higher Government officialunder charges of corruption and dispute integritywould cause unbearable mental agony and distressto the officer concerned. The protracteddisciplinary enquiry against a government employeeshould, therefore, be avoided not only in theinterests of the government employee but in publicinterest and also in the interests of inspiringconfidence in the minds of the government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employees. At this stage, it is necessary to drawthe curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. Theappellant had already suffered enough and more onaccount of the disciplinary proceedings. As amatter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings ofthe appellant due to the protracted disciplinaryproceedings would be much more than thepunishment. For the mistakes committed by thedepartment in the procedure for initiating thedisciplinary proceedings, the appellant should notbe made to suffer."3. Applying the above said ratio to the facts of thiscase, we are convinced that this case also stands on a equalfooting, where solely on the ground of delay in theinitiation of the disciplinary action the case of thepetitioner should fail. We therefore do not find any scopeto interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition.The writ petition fails. The petitioners are directed tosettle the terminal benefits of the first respondentexpeditiously, preferably within two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar gmsTo1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, N.V.Natarajan Maaligai,Kilpauk, Chennai 10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, Erode 3. +1cc to Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate Sr 41233+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 41156RS (CO)km/18.7.W.P.No.2204 of 2003