K THANGARAJU Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a veterinary Doctor. For the alleged mis-conduct said to have been committed by the petitioner pertained to the 1991-92, a charge memo was issued by the respondent on 13.01.2010. The charge against the petitioner on the statement of allegation are extracted hereunder:

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the charge memo has been issued after nearly 20 years of the alleged occurrence. Infact for a similar alleged occurrence, a charge memo was issued earlier and further action was dropped in pursuant to the Enquiry Officer's report. The charge memo has been issued when the petitioner is likely to be considered for promotion.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is the case of the respondent that the loanees are fictitious persons. The said fact by itself cannot be a ground to take action against the petitioner as a duty is only to issue the health certificate by examining the animals. In other words it is submitted that even assuming the loans have been given to fictitious persons, the said fact would not invalidate the health certificate issued by the petitioner and in any case, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for granting of the loan as his duty is to issue health certificate after verifying the health of the animals concerned. In support of the contention regarding the un-explained delay in passing the charge memo for the alleged occurrence that occurred 20 years back reliance has been made on a judgment in the case of Ilangovan and others versus District Collector, Nilgiris District, Ooty and others, 2011 7 MadLJ 927.