K DEIVENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DINDIGUL DISTRICT DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the charge memo, dated 19.02.2011 issued by the respondent herein.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.10.1984 at the Office of the Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravidar Welfare), Usialmpatti, Madurai District. The petitioner's name was included in the approved list of Assistants in the year 1989, approved list of Deputy Tahsildars in the year 1997 and in the approved list of Tahsildars in the year 2006. Now, the petitioner is serving as Huzur Sarishtadar (General) at the Office of the District Collector, Dindigul. It is stated by the petitioner that while he was working as Deputy Tahsildar at the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai during the year 2002, he had recommended for grant of assignment of land for an extent of 18.50 acres to seven persons, based on the reports of the Village Administrative Officer and the Special Revenue Inspector, who were the ground level officers at that point of time. The petitioner was only an intermediary official between the ground level officers and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), to whom such recommendation was made by the petitioner for grant of assignment of land. While that being the fact, after a period of nearly nine years, the present charge memo, impugned in this writ petition, has been framed by the respondent on 19.02.2011. The petitioner had challenged the said charge memo on various grounds including on the ground of undue and unexplained delay in issuing the charge memo.

(3.) THE respondent has also stated that when the Government has directed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and other concerned Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector in respect of the delinquency took place in the year 2002, the investigating authority enquired the allegation in the year 2007 and recommended departmental enquiry against the petitioner and other persons. Therefore, the delay in taking disciplinary action against the petitioner is only due to administrative reasons and it is neither willful nor wanton. It is also stated by the respondent that the petitioner having submitted his explanation to the charge memo ought to have allowed the enquiry to proceed with and await the result of the same instead of rushing before this Court by filing this writ petition.