Case Title: M. Sivaraju … Petitioner
Versus
The Agricultural production, Commissioner and Ors … Respondents
Date of Decision: Reserved on 21.04.2023.
Pronounced On 28.06.2023.
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI.
Citation: Writ Appeal.No.1865 of 2019 C.M.P.No.21529 of 2019.
Introduction:
The petitioner filed this writ appeal No. 1865 of 2019 against the operation of the order made in W.P.No.4581of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 (CMP.No.12603/2019) and obtained interim stay on 20.06.2019 in C.M.P.No. 12603 of 2019. Now the departmental enquiry is kept abeyance from 02.07.2019 after the receipt of the order of interim stay to this office on 02.07.2019.
Facts:
The appellant, has joined in the Agricultural Engineering Department, as Assistant Engineer, in June 1984 and he was posted in the Erode District. Thereafter on deputation he was posted in Rural Development Department in March 1997 as Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Union, Gobi, Erode District. Ever since the same he was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and was not subjected to any departmental proceeding and that he had reached the superannuation on 29.02.2016. While so, a false case was foisted against him by one Ashokan, councillor of Ward No.10 Gobi Panchayat Union who approached him for a favour which was rejected by him. Based upon the said complaint a trap was laid by Director of Vigilence and Anti Corruption Department against the appellant and one K.Vijayakumar, contractor in February 2002. But, no trap was held against the appellant. The above contractor was alone subjected to the trap proceedings. However a false case was foisted against him and the said contractor Vijayakumar. The above case was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode vide Spl. C.C.No.24/2015. According to the appellant he never demanded any money from anybody and he was unnecessarily dragged in to this case based on the false complaint lodged by the said councillor. Thereafter, the appellant was placed under suspension. The police filed the final report on 04.07.2005 after a period of three years and the trial was commenced after lapse of ten years.
Issue:
Whether the charges framed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the appellant is barred by delay and laches?
Legal Analysis:
The issue of charge memo by the third respondent after superannuation is highly belated and without any substance. The respondents ought to have proceeded against the appellant simultaneously for any serious misconduct, when criminal case is pending on the file of Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, but on the other hand they have not taken any action against the appellant even after his superannuation on 29.02.2016. The Criminal court having given a clear finding that none of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have spoken about the demand and acceptance of money as alleged, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that the alleged demand of money has been proved. Having accepted the well considered findings of hon’ble acquittal, it would be futile on the part of the third respondent to proceed against the appellant to issue a charge memo which is not sustainable as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements. Hence the charge memo is highly belated and that there has been an inordinate delay of 15 years that too after appellant has attained his superannuation. Even in the writ petition filed by the appellant, the respondents have not repudiated the allegations by filing a counter affidavit. The fact remains
that the averments made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition have not been controverted. The 3rd respondent ought to have initiated the disciplinary proceedings within the reasonable time, when there is no bar for taking simultaneous proceeding, by way of departmental proceedings and by way of criminal proceedings.
Judgement:
In the light of the above judgements, there is inordinate delay in framing the impugned charge memo and despite the direction of this Court, the respondent/disciplinary authority has not concluded the said disciplinary proceedings within the specified time. There is no initiation of action being taken by the respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to the charge memo has been framed. Therefore, at every stage, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondent/disciplinary authority. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the aforesaid impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed. In the result, the Writ appeal is allowed, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent/disciplinary authority vide proceeding No. No.Roc.No.11591/2015/R1 dated 24.08.2017 is quashed and the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4581 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay all retirement benefits to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Conclusion:
The fact remains that the averments made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition have not been controverted. There is no initiation of action being taken by the respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to the charge memo has been framed. The respondents are directed to pay all retirement benefits to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
