9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these writ appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in this common judgment will be referred to as 'the Petitioner' and 'Department'. 4. The case of the Petitioner before the learned single Judge was that he was appointed on 21.9.1974 as Junior Assistant (now re-designated as Assistant) in Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was promoted as Assistant Section Officer on 14.3.1977 and as Section Officer on 27.3.1993. As on date, the Petitioner has put in 35 years of service. The Petitioner is serving as Section Officer in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department with effect from 1.7.1996 and according to the Petitioner, the said department is the Disciplinary Authority. However, the first Respondent viz., the P AR Department framed a charge against the Petitioner by letter dated 25.6.2001 alleging that the Petitioner failed to discharge his legitimate duty as Section Officer, while dealing with 27 cases of NM Rs, who were working in various municipal Offices and Corporations in the State of Tamil Nadu and caused issuance of orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of jurisdiction, competency, delay, etc., by contending that the P AR Department has no jurisdiction to frame the charge and even assuming it has got jurisdiction, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, having issued direction in O.A. No. 1535 of 2003 by order dated 20.4.2003 to complete the proceedings within a period of four months, in spite of expiry of 19 months in toto and 15 months after the time granted by the Tribunal was over, the proceeding was not finalised and therefore the P AR Department has no jurisdiction to continue with the charge memo and proceed further, as no extension of time was applied for or obtained from the Tribunal. 8. This Court granted interim stay of the charge memo on 22.6.2005, taking note of the fact that no instruction was given by the P AR Department and non-filing of counter affidavit and as such there was no impediment for the P AR Department to proceed with the enquiry and pass final orders till the date of grant of stay. 9. The P AR Department filed counter affidavit by contending that during 1995-96 large scale irregular appointments numbering 400 NM Rs in various Municipalities and Municipal Corporations to the posts of Bill C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Delinquent Officer cannot be granted as there is a bar as per G.O. Ms. No. 368 P AR Department, dated 18.10.1993 and Government Letter issued in Letter Ms. No. 248 P AR Department dated 20.10.1997, and that, the order of the learned single Judge in giving direction to give promotion to the writ Petitioner is unsustainable. 12. Mr. N. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the writ petition in W.P. No. 853 of 2005 filed to quash the charge memo, is bound to be allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, after the expiry of the time granted by the Tribunal as time granted was over as early as in September, 2003, and no extension of time was sought for before the Tribunal or before this Court by the Department and without getting time extension to complete the enquiry and to pass final orders, the Secretary, P AR Department, has no jurisdiction to proceed further and after the expiry of the time granted by the Tribunal, the charge is bound to be treated as automatically lapsed. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that no allegation is made by the Department that the Petitioner is in any way responsible for the delay in com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ascertaining the genuineness of the candidates, non-availability of similarly placed candidates in the Department by getting necessary proposal or report from the authorities concerned and following the procedures laid down in the Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules, Secretariat Instructions and the Secretariat Office Manual, while examining the proposals at Secretariat level. In the charge memo it is stated that while the Petitioner served as Section Officer in ME-in Section in Municipal Administration and Water Supplies Department during the year 1995, he failed to discharge his duties and not properly examined in dealing with 27 persons, who worked as Nominal Muster Roll Employees and put a note, which caused the issuance of orders appointing them by relaxing the rules. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that all the alleged irregular appointments are continued and the persons appointed are also given promotions and they are in service as on today. The Petitioner in his reply to the charge memo, apart from raising jurisdictional issue, has stated that he is not responsible for issuing the appointment orders and the respective Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. 19. On 22.6.2005, taking note of the repeated time granted by this Court from March, 2005, to get instructions and to report the stage of the enquiry and no instruction having been received, this Court granted interim stay in WMP No. 941 of 2005. Thus, it is evident that from 5.5.2003 to 22.6.2005, for more than two years, no final order was passed, even though the time granted by the Tribunal was over as early as in September, 2003. 20. The learned Additional Advocate General, at the time of argument submitted that till date no final order is passed, even though enquiry is completed and no application seeking extension of time to pass final order was filed either before the Tribunal, or before this Court, after abolition of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we have to necessarily consider whether the Respondents in the writ petition have got jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry beyond the time fixed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to complete the enquiry and pass final orders. Four months time was fixed by the Tribunal taking note of the nature of the charge, the date of issuance of the charge memo, submission of explanation, appointment of enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to finalise the proceedings. It is stated that on 5.5.88 a cut in the pension to the extent of 30% was recommended and the recommendation has remained with the appropriate authorities for more than a year and three months to be dealt with one way or the other. Several adjournments were granted in this Court to get the finalisation of the proceedings and in spite of repeated adjournments on each adjourned date the counsel for the Union of India has been stating that the matter would soon be finalised. When the matter is taken up today, counsel for the Union of India still indicates that no final orders have been obtained. We find that the tribunal has not quantified the claims of the employee. In the circumstances, it is difficult for us to indicate what exactly are the dues to which he has become entitled. The matter shall go back to the Tribunal for computation of the exact dues and the Tribunal is directed to do the same within three months from today, if necessary after hearing the parties. In view of the fact that mandatory direction of the Tribunal that the disciplinary proceedings which were then pending should be completed within six months and more than three ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition for extension of time was filed and the same was rejected, directing to reinstate him. Thereafter, he was reinstated by order dated 12.03.1993 as Deputy Superintending Engineer. After lapse of two years, when his retirement was due on 31.05.1995, the Respondents revived the proceedings and placed him under suspension on 29.05.1995. Simultaneously another order was issued not permitting him to retire in view of the criminal investigation by Directorate of Vigilance Anti-corruption. One Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.11.1996 but orders were not passed. Hence, he was constrained to file W.P. No. 1247 of 19% and this Court granted time to complete the enquiry within three months, which was not complied with. Thereafter, time was extended to pass a final order on the ground that enquiry shall be completed within one month. Even then no orders were passed and the second Enquiry Officer was appointed and when further time was prayed, this Court has refused to grant the same. Therefore, when once the Court has refused to extend the time for completion of enquiry, the Petitioner filed the contempt petition for non-compliance of the order dated 26.11.1997 passed in the miscell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner are totally identical with that of the charges framed in earlier charge-sheet dated March 10, 1986 and the misconduct which is alleged is also the same, which was part and parcel of the earlier charge-sheet dated March 10, 1986. The fact that the charges are identical in nature is not disputed by the Respondent Similarly, the list of documents and list of witnesses relied on by the Respondent for proving the charges in the second charge-sheet are also identical in nature with that of relied on by the Respondent for first charge-sheet dated March 10, 1986. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the Respondent, by virtue of this exercise, wants to reopen the case of departmental enquiry against the Petitioner on the same set of facts and for the same misconduct which, in our considered view, is not permissible in law. 8. As we have already observed hereinabove, after June 15, 1986, the Respondent lost the legal right to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner by virtue of the specific order dated March 24, 1986 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1986 and therefore, the question of starting new enquiry by fresh cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucting the enquiry and completing the enquiry within the time. Hence the Department is bound to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1535 of 2003. 24. Issue Nos. 2 3: In view of the findings arrived at by us for Issue No. 1, issue No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and issue No. 2 need not be decided as the same is unnecessary. 25. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner as well as the non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal by the Department; the mental agony and hardships faced by the Petitioner in this case from the year 2001; having regard to the fact that the Petitioner is due to retire from service on 30.4.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation; taking into consideration the dropping of similar charge framed against one R. Indirani Naidu, Section Officer, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, on the same day, for the same lapse under Rule 17(b), by the first Respondent by issuing G.O.(3D) No. 15 P AR Department dated 21.12.2005; and in view of the fact that against some of the higher officials the charges having been disposed of by issuing Censure, we hold no useful purpose will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
