Judgment · High Court

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 08.02.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.P.(MD)No.702 of 2011K.Illango: Petitioner vs.

The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL-1), Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi Division, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. : RespondentsPRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to Governmentletter No.20904/CL-1/2006-25, dated 01.11.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to make disbursement of pension andother retirement benefits to the petitioner, within a specified timeframe that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.VisvalingamFor Respondents: Mr.M.AlagudevanSpecial Government Pleader ORDER*******The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the charge sheet issued by the first respondent alleging act of misconduct against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner entered the State service in the year 1984.The petitioner was due to retire on 28.02.2007, on attaining the age ofsuperannuation. During the material time, he was working as VillageAdministrative Officer in Arasankulam, Melapathi (West), Aranthangi Talukin the district of Pudukottai. However, he was not permitted to retire on28.02.2007 and he was placed under suspension pending investigation of the case in Crime No.5 of 2003, on the file of the Deputy Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The criminal case was later withdrawn by the Government, as per order in G.O.No.210, Agriculture Department, dated09.10.2009. Subsequently, the first respondent issued the impugned chargesheet proposing to conduct an enquiry under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil NaduCivil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is the said charge sheet which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The charge in question relates to an alleged misconduct committed by a group of officers. The criminal cases registered against the officials were subsequently withdrawn on 09.10.2009. In the order withdrawing prosecution, the Government clearly stated that there is no point in conducting the cases before the criminal Court, in view of the fact that there was no loss of revenue to the Government. The Governmentfurther stated that there were no complaints from the Agriculturists that they were paid only lesser amount and as such, the complaint cannot be prosecuted alleging payment of lesser amount to the Agriculturists by the concerned officers.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by this Court dated 17.03.2010 in W.P.(MD)Nos.8924 of2006 and 6508 of 2009, in support of his contention that the charge sheet issued against a co-delinquent has already been quashed by this Court.