A. SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.A.Shanmugam has filed these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In W.P.No.21379 of 2009, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of reversion passed by the first respondent-Chief Secretary to Government in G.O.Ms.No.944, Public (Special.A) Department dated 22.9.09, reverting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector from the post of Special District Revenue Officer, in view of the charge sheet filed against him on 13.7.2007 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Erode. In W.P.No.21380 of 2009, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of suspension passed by the second respondent-Principal Secretary and Commissioner for Revenue Administration in G.O.(2D).No.490, Revenue Ser2(1) Department dated 29.9.2009 on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him for the misappropriation of Government funds in sanctioning of housing loans to the Sri Lankan repatriates at Erode and Perundurai Taluks while he was serving as Tahsildar. The said suspension order also further says that a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in C.C.Nos.72 and 73 of 2007 on 13.7.2007 and in view of that, under clause (1) of sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect until further orders.

(2.) Assailing both the impugned orders, Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner was promoted to the post of District Revenue Officer on 6.3.2009, he was suddenly transferred to Tiruchirappalli Special District Revenue Office (Land Acquisition), while so, he was reverted to the post of Deputy Collector in G.O.Ms.No.944, Public (Special.A) Department dated 22.9.2009, when he was having only a few days to retire from service, namely, on 30.9.2009. It was also his case that on 29.9.2009, an order of suspension was passed in a hurried manner and both the impugned orders do not show that any show cause notice was given to the petitioner calling for explanation either for reversion to the post of Deputy Collector or for suspension. When it is a settled law that an employee should be heard before passing any adverse orders in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the respondents have completely flouted the service rules and committed violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further stated that when the petitioner was due to retire on 30.9.2009, the suspension order dated 29.9.2009 passed against the petitioner clearly shows that the respondents have ignored the terms and conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 8.6.2007. As per the said Government Order, it is necessary to suspend the Government servant from service and not to permit him to retire on attaining the age of superannuation under the Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c), if the disciplinary authority considers that the petitioner has committed any serious misconduct which warrants imposition of major penalty, such as dismissal or removal from service, within three months period before the date of retirement of the Government servant and charges could not be framed before the date of retirement of the Government servant. But in the present case, the manner in which both the impugned orders have been issued against the petitioner shows that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner within a span of six days by serving the orders of reversion and suspension and they have pre-judged the issue to deprive of his rights to retire peacefully.

(3.) Continuing his arguments, it was stated that when the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned a scheme known as "Sri Lankan Repatriates Housing Loan Scheme" for Ceylon refugees in the year 1982, criteria has been fixed for giving the benefit of this housing loan scheme stating that the Ceylon repatriates holding valid passports from Sri Lanka are eligible for housing loan. The Revenue Divisional Officer of the concerned division should receive the applications from the repatriates and forward the same to the concerned Tahsildar for enquiry and verification and on such verification, a report should be prepared and the same should be forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate orders. The said scheme was in force from 1982 to 1992. While so, when the petitioner was serving as the Revenue Inspector/Assistant in the Revenue Department, he was posted at Erode as Firka Revenue Inspector. During the said period, several applications for sanction of housing loan were received by the Tahsildar/Revenue Divisional Officer and the same were also forwarded to the petitioner for scrutinisation and verification. The petitioner submitted the same to the Tahsildar, after due verification, who in turn forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer with his recommendation for appropriate orders. That shows that there has been a collective responsibility of all the officers involved in the process of according sanction for housing loan, therefore, no individual can be held responsible for any lapses that might have occasioned during the process of sanction. Moreover, when the petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector/Assistant, he is not the authority for sanction of housing loan. In fact the petitioner's immediate superiors viz., the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer alone are the competent authorities to sanction the loan. However, when the irregularities were brought to the higher officers, investigation into certain allegations against the employees in 1992 was also conducted to ascertain the alleged irregularities said to have been committed while sanctioning the housing loan. On such investigation, it was found that certain employees in Erode District Revenue unit failed to properly scrutinise the documents relating to the sanction of housing loan to Sri Lankan repatriates and the entire documents were also found to be missing in the records. In view of that, the Government thought it fit to proceed against the employees, who committed serious lapses in the revenue unit, on their involvement as to sanction of the loan to Sri Lankan repatriates. While so, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. Moreover, when the sanctioning of housing loan took place as early as during the period 1982 to 1989, the respondents claim that the alleged irregularities were found only in the year 2006-07. Only based on the above said investigation, the Government issued G.O.(3D) No.26, Revenue [Ser.10(1)] Department dated 4.9.2006 and also G.O.Ms.No.28-38 dated 12.1.2007 to proceed against certain Government servants including the petitioner for criminal prosecution. But the petitioner has not been served with any notice for the alleged lapses to give his explanation. In this connection, when the respondents have initiated similar proceedings against several other persons viz., Mr.Syed Hussain, District Revenue Officer, formerly Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Mr.Jayaraman, District Revenue Officer, Principal, Civil Services Training Institute, Bhavanisagar, Mr.R.Vajravelu, District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, after initiating departmental proceedings, the respondents dropped the proceedings against them and permitted them to retire with all the attendant benefits. The petitioner is also similarly placed, therefore, the respondents ought not to have continued both the orders, namely, the impugned orders of reversion and suspension.