N.Gopal v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment Chennai 600 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 2-1-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.19304 of 2006andMP No.2 of 2006N.Gopal.. Petitioner vs1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment Chennai 600 009.2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. By its Managing Director Chennai 600 035... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of therespondents relating to Proceedings No.DC4/55135/96 dated 7.10.2003, MemoNo.DC4/55135/96 dated 14.1.2004, Memo No.DC4/55135/96-3 dated 10.6.2005and Memo No.DC4/55135/96 dated 3.10.2005 on the file of the 2nd respondentand Letter No.19197-A/HBI(2)/2005 dated 28.10.2005 on the file of the 1strespondent and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.Duraisamy Senior Counsel for M/s.Muthumani DoraisamiFor Respondents: Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.R.Girirajan for R2ORDERThe petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the ProceedingsNo.DC4/55135/96 dated 7.10.2003, Memo No.DC4/55135/96 dated 14.1.2004,Memo No.DC4/55135/96-3 dated 10.6.2005 and Memo No.DC4/55135/96 dated3.10.2005, on the file of the 2nd respondent and Letter No.19197-A/HBI(2)/2005 dated 28.10.2005, on the file of the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The gist of the case of the petitioner is that while he was workingas Divisional Accountant in Special Division-II, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Coimbatore, he was kept under suspension on 22.6.1998, on the ground ofcertain irregularities committed by him; that further, a charge memo wasserved upon him on 6.7.1998, alleging irregularities in the allotment ofrental quarters; that a detailed reply was given by him; that theexplanation was not found satisfactory; that thereafter, there was anEnquiry Officer appointed; that he was of the opinion that the charge wasnot proved; that when the matter was placed before the Managing Directorof the Board, he has got a dissenting view and found that it has beenproved; that there was an imposition of punishment of withholding of 1/3rdpension for a period of five years; that he preferred an appeal, and ithas been rejected as if it was out of time, and hence, the petitioner wascompelled to file the writ petition before this Court. 3.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learnedSenior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, there was noirregularity in the allotment of rental quarters by the petitioner; thathe was not the final authority for allotment; that as far as the allotmentwas concerned, while number of persons are involved, no enquiry has beeninitiated; that he was the only person found fault with and proceededagainst; that even the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge has notbeen proved; that under the circumstances, there was no occasion for theManaging Director to take a different view; that once the representationshave been made, they have not been considered; that after making therepresentation, finally the appeal has been preferred; that the same hasbeen rejected since it was out of time, that apart from that, he hasattained superannuation in the month of June 1998; but, he has not beenallowed to retire in view of the pendency of the proceedings, and underthe circumstances, the writ petition has got to be ordered.4.The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for theHousing Board is that it is a case where the irregularity was proved; thatit is true that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding in favour of thepetitioner; but, assigning sufficient reasons, a dissenting view was takenby the Managing Director and the punishment was also imposed; that therepresentation was called for before awarding the punishment; that he hasalso done so; that once the punishment of withholding of 1/3rd pension fora period of five years was awarded, an appeal was preferred; but, it wasout of time; that the authority had no power to condone the delay, andhence, it has been rejected; and that under the circumstances, the writpetition has got to be dismissed. 5.It is an admitted position that there was a charge levelled againstthe petitioner in respect of the allotment of rental quarters when he wasworking as Divisional Accountant at the Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Coimbatore. It is also not in controversy that he put forth hisexplanation, and an enquiry was conducted, as a result of which it wasfound by the Enquiry Officer that he was not guilty of the charge. Whenthe matter was placed before the Managing Director, he took a dissentingview and after calling for the representation, has imposed the punishmentin question. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that hehas preferred an appeal, and the same has been rejected since it was out https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of time. It is further to be pointed out that the authority has no powerto condone the delay. Originally, a report was given by the EnquiryOfficer that the charge was not proved, and then, the dissenting view wastaken by the Managing Director. In such circumstances, it is a fit casewhere the merits have got to be gone into. Now, the appeal preferred, wasrejected since it was out of time. This Court is of the consideredopinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be given anopportunity to put forth his case before the appellate forum. Along withthis, other proceedings were also initiated, and orders have been passedby this Court. 6.In the instant case, what is noticed is that instead of preferringan appeal, the petitioner was going on making representations to theManaging Director, before whom the appeal has got to be preferred.Instead of doing so, he has made the representations. Even therepresentation could have been considered as appeal, but not done so.Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the delay that hasbeen caused in preferring the appeal, could be condoned. Accordingly, itis condoned, and the Housing Board is directed to take up the appealoriginally filed by him, and dispose it of on merits and in accordancewith law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected MP is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/To:1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil NaduHousing and Urban DevelopmentDepartmentChennai 600 009.2.The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Housing BoardChennai 600 035.1 cc To Mr.Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.209.1 cc To Mr.Girirajan, Advocate (TNHB), SR.2401 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.309.WP No.19304 of 2006 MS(CO)RVL 07.01.2008