C. RATHINAM Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge memo dated 28.08.2010 issued by the first respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner worked as a Village Administrative Officer in Ilayarasanendhal Village and reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2003. The petitioner states that he was given additional charge of Nakkalamuthanapatti Village and subsequently relieved from the additional charge in September 2004. The charge memo was issued by the first respondent Government which reads as under:

(2.) The allegation against the writ petitioner is that he has not prevented the quarrying in Government Poromboke rock which caused financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.6,88,846/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Six only). He has not initiated any action to prevent the quarrying and committed dereliction of the incident. Defending the case, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the charge memo, mainly on the ground that as per Rule 9(2)(b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, the allegation falls beyond the period of four years and therefore, the charge memo is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contention put forth by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the knowledge regarding the irregularities came to the Government at later point of time and the period of service is immaterial and the identification of the illegality are dereliction of the duty. This point has to be considered for the purpose of identification of disciplinary action. The writ petitioner was serving as Village Administrative Officer in the year 2004. He was allowed to retire from service on 28.02.2010. Thereafter, the Government came to know the irregularities regarding the illegal quarrying and issued G.O.Ms.No.145, Industries (E1) Department, dated 18.08.2020, to institute disciplinary proceedings against seventeen officials. The Government Order states that the disciplinary action against all the Government servants shall be taken and the Government shall function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose common proceedings. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 28.08.2010. The writ petitioner has not even submitted his explanation. He filed the writ petition and thereafter no action has been taken.