J.Manavalan v. The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner Of Revenue Administration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND and W.M.P.(MD).No.4359 of 2025 J.Manavalan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai.
2. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.44266/2021 dated 28.10.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar with the period that may be stipulated by this Court. 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar For Respondents : Mr.D.Sachi Kumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 44266/2021 dated 28.10.2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused material records.
3. While the petitioner was working as a Deputy Tahsildar, a criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.9 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC on the file of District Crime Branch, Theni District. The first respondent by an order dated 06.12.2021, has placed the petitioner under suspension. On 02.02.2022, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo by the second respondent under Rule 17(b) of TamilNadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and framing two charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the said charge memo. Originally, the petitioner was paid 50% of subsistence allowance and subsequently on 24.06.2022 it was increased to 75%. 2/6
3.1. On 18.02.2022, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the second respondent, seeking to revoke his suspension order. For non consideration of the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.15941 of 2022 before this Court and the same is disposed of by an order dated 17.08.2022, with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.07.2022 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. In compliance of the same, the present impugned order has been passed, wherein, the request of the petitioner to reinstate into service by revoking the suspension order is rejected.
4. Mr.Nirmal Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resource Management (N) Department dated 04.08.2022 and he would submit that any disciplinary proceedings against the Government Servant have to be concluded within the time stipulated in the said Government Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2022, till now final orders are not passed, by concluding the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder.
3/6
''12. The Government also reiterate the time limit prescribed in the Government letter first read above for processing the disciplinary proceedings so as to ensure that there is no unwarranted delay in finalizing them, as follows:
(I) To complete the investigation by Directorate of Vigilance and AntiCorruption and to send a report to Government through Vigilance Commission One year (ii) To complete the enquiry by the Tribunal and to send its findings to the Department of Secretariat One year (iii) To pass final orders by the Government/Heads of Department on receipt of the report of the Tribunal Four months
5. On perusal of the extracted portion of the said Government Order as stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is substantial force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent have to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated by the State Government.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second respondent is failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within the time stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022.
4/6
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
(i) the second respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass orders by following due process of law. (ii) If, the second respondent failed to conclude the enquiry, within the time stipulated above, the respondent No.2 shall re-instate the petitioner into service forthwith and post in any non-sensitive post. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.03.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gvn 5/6
BATTU DEVANAND , J.
gvn To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai.
2. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
05.03.2025 6/6