J DEVARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(2.) Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner stood vitiated on the ground that there was inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary action ranging from 10 to 17 years for issuing the charge memo in relation to the transactions, which took place in the early 1990s. In the absence of any valid explanation for such a long delay, as per the settled legal principles, the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner is liable to be interfered with on that ground alone.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even on merits, the petitioner has a clear case as the entire charges framed against him are baseless and unfounded. Further, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has given a clear finding in favour of the petitioner that the alleged transactions, which formed the basis for the disciplinary action against the petitioner, did not warrant any disciplinary action at all muchless imposing penalty. The learned counsel would further submit that the Disciplinary Authority, without any supporting materials and without relying on any contra piece of evidence that was made available in the department enquiry, has disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to the charges 1 to 4 and merely concluded that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was not acceptable. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that such a bald disagreement cannot be countenanced either under law or on facts. The Disciplinary Authority, while imposing penalty, has also not taken into consideration the long inordinate delay in initiation and completion of the enquiry and such a delay has constituted grave prejudice to the petitioner.