Y JEYASINGH BABU Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was charged with an allegation of producing false bills and an FIR was registered in Crime No.1 of 1990 dated 05.03.1990 as against him. On the sanction of the Chief Engineer, the case was registered as Special Case No.1 of 1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and ultimately after trial the case itself was dismissed on 31.12.2008. In the meanwhile the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006. But on the date of superannuation on 31.07.2006, the 2nd respondent placed him under suspension and retained in service in FR 56(1)(c). THErefore, according to the petitioner on the dismissal of the criminal case, the suspension is automatically deemed to have been revoked atleast on 31.12.2008.

(2.) THE petitioner now transpires that after the dismissal of the criminal case, he has now been issued a further new charge memo on 18.08.2009 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the same set of facts and same charge of mis-appropriation of Government Funds to the tune of Rs.4,727.50/-. Aggrieved against the said charge memo, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the charge memo itself on the ground that the order itself is not duly been authenticated by the Disciplinary Authority namely the 1st respondent and the charge memo has been given after a period of 23 years for an alleged offence in the year 1996 which is bad in law. Even the alleged amount mis-appropriated is Rs.4,727.50/- for which a criminal case was conducted and acquitted. But in the least they would also contend that after superannuation i.e. On 31.07.2006, the authority could invoke only the provisions under the Pension Rules and not under 17(b). In any view of the matter, the inordinate delay of 23 years is absolutely not acceptable. Hence, the charge memo is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE only main point for consideration raised by the petitioner was that the alleged offence of mis-appropriation took place in the year 1986 for which a criminal complaint was given in the year 1990 and the prosecution continued for a period of 18 years and ultimately, the Court granted an acquittal on 31.12.2008. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.07.2006. But only on the last date of retirement suspension order was issued keeping him under suspension under FR 56(1)(c). But it is pertinent to point out here that throughout the period when the case was pending namely for a period of 20 years or any time prior to the retirement no charge sheet was issued, no charge was framed and no disciplinary action was initiated by the Department. But after the dismissal of the criminal case, unfortunately, the Government would only contend that as per the wishes of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, they have come to a conclusion. THEy have not even clearly stated that on what basis they have decided to issue the charge. THErefore, it is crystal clear that the Department first time initiated an action as against the petitioner after a period of 23 years which under law is not sustainable at all.