GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. M SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the District Forest Officer impugning an order of the learned Judge of the writ court dated 29.8.2007, by which the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the departmental proceeding initiated by the appellants against the respondent herein. The material facts of the case are that some charges were levelled against the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, in May, 1997 and a charge memo was issued on 20.11.1998. To that, the writ petitioner gave an explanation on 9.2.1999. Thereafter, there was an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer filed his report on 30.5.2000 and the same was communicated to the writ petitioner on 14.8.2000. The writ petitioner then made a representation on 15.9.2000. But since then, the matter was kept pending with the authority and no final order was passed even when the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge of the writ court on 29.8.2007. Therefore, for seven years, no final order was passed in respect of the aforesaid departmental enquiry.

(2.) IT may be noted in this connection that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner just on the eve of his retirement and the writ petitioner was allegedly suspended from service on the date of his superannuation. IT appears that before the learned Judge of the writ court, no explanation was offered by the present appellants explaining the delay in the matter of conclusion of the enquiry for a period of seven years. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no counter was filed by the appellants before the learned Judge of the writ court. Therefore, any explanation for such gross delay was not before the learned Judge. On these facts, the learned Judge held and in our view, rightly that a person cannot be kept under perpetual mental agony by the authorities by not passing the final order for a period of seven years. The learned Judge also found that on the date of superannuation, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and the suspension order was also prolonged. As such, the learned Judge was pleased to set aside the suspension order and also the departmental proceeding in view of such inordinate delay. Before us also, no explanation has been offered even in the stay petition, for the delay of seven years in passing the final order. The only so called explanation in paragraph 5 of the stay petition runs as follows:-

(3.) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we do not think that ends of justice would permit us to interfere with the order which has been passed by the learned Judge of the writ court. The departmental proceedings have been rightly quashed by the learned Judge and we reiterate the same, may be on some other grounds. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.