S.MATHESWARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Ganesan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) Through a charge memo dtd. 13/1/2018, framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities by sanctioning old age pension to ineligible beneficiaries, an inquiry came to be conducted in which the charges against the petitioner were held as proved, through an inquiry report dtd. 2/1/2021. The petitioner had submitted his further representations on 31/12/2021 and 5/1/2022. After more than two years, the Government had passed the impugned punishment order in G.O.(2D) No.8, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dtd. 9/1/2023, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The order of punishment is put under challenge in the present Writ

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner predominantly raised the ground of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, as well as concluding the same. According to her, for the alleged delinquencies that occurred during the period between 6/2/2014 and 9/8/2014, the charges came to be framed only on 13/1/2018, after almost four years. She also submitted that though the petitioner had given his explanation to the charge memo on 21/2/2018 itself, the proceedings were kept pending without any reason. In view of the pendency, when he had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.24897 of 2018, challenging the charge memo dtd. 13/1/2018, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed. As against the same, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2119 of 2019 and by an order dtd. 18/7/2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had directed the disciplinary authority to complete the inquiry within a period of three months. In spite of such specific directions, final orders came to be passed only after 3 years. In view of the inordinate delay from the initiation of the proceedings till its final conclusion, the punishment itself cannot be sustained. It is also her submission that in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Deputy Collector for the panel year 2019-2020.