THE STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs. S. MUTHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants 1 to 3 and Mr.K.Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

(2.) The earlier writ petition had been filed by the respondent praying for a direction to direct the first appellant to pass appropriate orders on the Show Cause Notice proposing punishment in three proceedings, all dated 27.08.2009. Though such a prayer was made by the writ petitioner, the Writ Court has quashed the Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner and directed the disbursing of pension to the writ petitioner. The State is on appeal against the said order. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Writ Court exceeded the relief sought for by the respondent/writ petitioner, especially, when the relief sought for by the respondent/writ petitioner was only to pass appropriate orders on the Show Cause Notice. The respondent/writ petitioner was faced with five Charge Proceedings. The first Charge Proceeding is dated 03.10.1996 pertains to an incident, which is said to have occurred in the year 1991-1992 with regard to the certain allegations of mal-practice in repairing the official Jeep. The Charge Memo was issued in the year 1996, the delay of more than four years remains un-explained. The disciplinary authority had taken their own time to hold that the charges are proved. Though second Show Cause Notice was issued on 29.10.2009, no final orders have been passed till date. The second Charge Proceeding is dated 08.05.1997, for the allegation regarding cutting down of Babool trees, which is said to have occurred in the year 1999, till date final orders are yet to be passed. The third Charge Proceeding is dated 08.01.2003, pertaining to the purchase of uniforms for the Panchayat Assistants. The respondent's/writ petitioner's specific case is that similarly placed persons, who faced similar charges, action has been dropped and in this regard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner has produced the following Government Orders:

(3.) So far, the fourth Charge, dated 08.05.1997, already final orders have been passed in G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 28.01.2015 and in the fifth charge, dated 22.05.1997, final orders have been passed in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 28.01.2015. Under normal circumstances, we would have allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition, as the prayer sought for in the writ petition was only to pass final orders and the Court could have quashed the entire Disciplinary Proceedings. However, considering the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner is aged about 80 years and though attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1997 and permitted to retire without prejudice to the Departmental Proceedings, is till date yet to receive his full retirement benefits. Therefore, we propose to make a small departure in the present matter, which cannot be treated as a precedent.