M.P.Sundararajan (deceased) v. Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:21.09.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJAW.P.No.24489 of 20041. M.P.Sundararajan (deceased)2. Tmt. Devaki3. S.Meenakshi4. S.Elangovan5. S.Prabhakaran ... Petitioners (P2 to P5 substituted as LR's in the place of deceased petitioner vide order dated 17.03.2011 in WP.MP.No.201/2011)Vs.1.Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus as statedtherein.For Petitioner :Mr.M.Nandakumar for Mr.A.GanesanFor Respondents:Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, AGPORDERThe petitioners herein seek for issuance of writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings No.89627/VI/2002,dated 26.07.2004, dismissing the petitioner from service, passed bythe second respondent/the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, bycalling for the records connected thereto and consequently todirect the first respondent herein to permit the petitioner toretire from service with effect from 30.09.2001 with all hisretirement benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner, after joining the service as JuniorAssistant on 19.06.1975, was promoted as Assistant on 07.04.1981and again, he was promoted as Superintendent with effect from09.08.1994. When he was due for promotion as Motor VehicleInspector (Non-Technical) for the year 1999-2000, he was servedwith a charge memo by the Regional Transport Officer under Rule 17(b) on 03.04.1998 for an allegation that he had released an OmniBus on 05.02.1998 without collecting the Tax amount for vehicles.On receipt of the said charge memo, even though the petitioner hassubmitted his explanations denying the charges levelled againsthim, the Enquiry was not proceeded with, within a reasonable time.Thereafter, he was again issued with another charge memo under Rule17(b) on 28.09.2001 for an allegation that he has issued aduplicate license to one Ravi without properly verifying therecords. Therefore, it was submitted before this Court that whenthe petitioner was subjected to two charge memos, which are notrelated either to dishonest motive or corruption charges, theyshould have proceeded with further for completion of the enquiry,keeping in view the date of superannuation of the petitioner, whichwas scheduled on 30.09.2001, but without doing so, they had placedhim under suspension on 29.09.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner, onreaching the age of superannuation on 30.09.2001, awaiting for along time for completion of the enquiry, finding no gesture forcompletion of the enquriy, approached the Tribunal, by filingO.A.No.7343/2001, with a prayer to allow him to retire from servicewith all benefits. The Tribunal, by order dated 21.10.2002,directed the Transport Commissioner to pass final orders, on boththe disciplinary proceedings, within 3 months from 21.10.2002, witha condition that, if no order was passed on or before 21.01.2003,the disciplinary proceedings shall stand annulled. Thereafter,when the said order dated 21.10.2002 passed in O.A.No.7343/2001 wasreceived by the Transport Commissioner on 25.10.2002, accepting thesaid order, they have not passed any final order within the timelimit prescribed by the Tribunal. After the expiry of the timelimit fixed by the Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer was appointed on11.07.2003 and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, with a delay of 10months, submitted his report only on 06.05.2004 holding the chargesas proved. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filedthe present writ petition.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatwhen the Tribunal has given a time limit of 3 months inO.A.No.7343/2001, dated 21.10.2002, to second respondent/TransportCommissioner, to complete the entire exercise, after receipt of theorder passed by the Tribunal, they allowed the impugneddisciplinary proceedings stand automatically annulled, for, thedepartment has appointed the Enquiry Officer only on 11.07.2003,which is after 9 months from the date of receipt of the orderpassed by the Tribunal, hence, it was contended that, if the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, theyshould have filed an appeal against that order. But, admittedly,in the present case, no appeal has been filed. Even if they hadfaced any administrative difficulties, they should have approachedthe Tribunal or this Court seeking extension of time for completionof the enquiry. But, even that has not been followed. Therefore,it is not open to the respondents to pass the present order, beyondthe time limit fixed by the Tribunal. 4. In this connection, he has also relied upon a judgment ofthis Court in State of Tamil Nadu & another v. T.Ranganathan (2010(2) L.W.867) for a proposition that once a competent Court fixes anouter time limit to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, theparties to the proceedings are bound to strictly adhere to the timegranted to comply with the said order. On that basis, he prayedfor allowing the present writ petition.5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentssubmitted that though the Tribunal has given a time limit of 3months to complete the entire exercise, the petitioner did not comeforward to cooperate with the enquiry and as a result, thedepartment was not in a position to complete the entire exercisewithin a time limit prescribed by the Tribunal. 6. The above said argument of the learned counsel forrespondents does not find force, inasmuch as the order passed by aDivision Bench of this Court in T.Ranganathan's case (cited supra),has held in paragraph 21 thereof as under;"21. It is well settled in law that once acompetent Court fixes an outer time limit to completethe enquiry and pass final orders, the parties to theproceedings are bound to strictly adhere to the timegranted to comply with the said order. If on anyreason the time fixed by the competent Court is unableto be adhered to and the proceedings are unable to befinalised, the party to the proceedings can approachthe very same Court seeking extension of time statingsufficient reasons and once valid reasons are given,normally the Court/Tribunal would extend the time,depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.Admittedly the said procedure has not been followed inthis case and the department has chosen to ignore thedirection given by the Tribunal, which is binding onthem." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the instant case, the Tribunal, in its order dated21.10.2002 passed in O.A.No.7343/2001, directed the TransportCommissioner/second respondent herein to pass final order, on boththe disciplinary proceedings, within 3 months from 21.10.2002, witha condition that, if no order was passed on or before 21.01.2003,the disciplinary proceedings shall stand annulled. Thereafter,the second respondent/the Transport Commissioner has also receivedthe order passed by the Tribunal on 25.10.2002. After receivingsuch order from the Tribunal, they have appointed the EnquiryOfficer only on 11.07.2003, which is, admittedly, after the threemonths time prescribed by the Tribunal, in its order, dated21.10.2002, and in turn, the Enquiry Officer, with a delay of 10months, submitted his report only on 06.05.2004. Therefore, fromthe above, it is clear that neither the department has followed theorder passed by the Tribunal nor the Enquiry Officer had advertedto the order passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, if thedepartment has found any non-cooperation on the part of thepetitioner, as contended by the learned counsel for therespondents, it is for the department to point out the non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner in finalising theproceeding and the hardships faced by the department in notstrictly adhering to the time schedule due to the fault of thepetitioner or for any valid reason and get appropriate ordersseeking extension of time. At this juncture, it is relevant topoint out that even if the time granted originally to complete theenquiry is over, nothing prevented the department from filing anappropriate application after expiry of the time. It is now wellsettled in law that application seeking extension of time can befiled and the Courts are having inherent powers to grant furthertime, even though the original time granted got expired, based onthe principles of invoking inherent powers to meet the ends ofjustice. In this case, there is no whisper about the non-cooperation of the petitioner in conducting the enquiry andcompleting the enquiry within the time. Hence, the department isbound to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal inO.A.No.7343/2001. Therefore, as held by a Division Bench of thisCourt in T.Ranganathan's (cited supra), once a competent Courtfixes an outer time limit to complete the enquiry and pass finalorders, the parties to the proceedings are bound to strictly adhereto the time granted to comply with the said order, but, admittedly,in the present case, the said procedure has not been followed withby the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Therefore, this Court, for the aforesaid reasons, bysetting aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent,allows the present writ petition with a direction to the firstrespondent to pass appropriate order, as though the petitioner hasretired from service on 30.09.2001 and grant the consequentialretirement benefits to the legal heirs within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.rkmSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Ganesan, Advocate SR No.59282+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.59173SR(CO)SR/29.10.2011W.P.No.24489/2004