P F GEORGE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was originally recruited as Agricultural Extension Officer in the Agriculture Department at Thiruthuraipoondi. He was working there from 7th July, 1955 to 31st December, 1957. During that period, there was a defalcation of the Government money to the tune of Rs. 44, 877-89 by two depot clerks. Arputharaj and Ponnuswami. This defalcation was detected only in the year 1957 during the course of an internal audit of the Block Development Office and also by a further audit for the entire period from 1954 to 1957. For the said defalcation, the said two clerks were suspended from service and ultimately criminal proceedings were initiated against them. However, the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal. THEreafter a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 6th October, 1958, by the Collector containing 13 charges. THE substance of these charges is that the petitioner had been negligent in supervising the said two clerks and that had resulted in the defalcation of the Government money by the said depot clerks. Immediately in answer to the said memo, the petitioner, gave his explanation on 9th July, 1959. No action was taken in respect of the said charges, till 12th December, 1964, when the petitioner was again served with a charge memo containing the same 13 charges by the District Agricultural Officer. THE petitioner again gave his explanation to the said charge memo on 28th May, 1964. However, nothing was heard about the charge and no enquiry was, in fact, held. THEreafter another charge memo was issued by the same District Agricultural Officer on 13th April, 1966, containing the same charges as in the original charge memorandum, dated 6th October, 1958. THE petitioner again submitted an explanation on 24th August, 1966, wherein be denied the charges and stated that he was not in any way responsible for the defalcation committed by the two depot clerks. After receipt of the petitioner's explanation, no steps were taken in respect of these charges.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the petitioner's turn came for promotion as District Agricultural Officer and he was actually promoted on 10th November, 1966. Nearly 5 years thereafter, on 2nd February, 1971, the petitioner was served with an order from the Director of Agriculture, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 16, 714.06 from him from his salary on the ground that the petitioner had been guilty of negligence in supervising the work of the Depot Clerk and such negligence had led to the defalcation of the Government money by the depot clerks.

(3.) THE learned counsel has taken us through the charges framed against the petitioner at different stages and pointed out the inaction of the department in pursuing action on the said charges for a period of 13 years. THE facts set out above indicate that though the charges have been framed for the first time against the petitioner on 6th October, 1958, and the same have been repeated by fresh memo, of charges in 1964, and in 1966 action has been taken on the charges only on 2nd February, 1971, nearly after 13 years without any enquiry. In the meanwhile, there has been a promotion. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has been promoted originally as District Agricultural Officer will lead to the inference that the department has given up the charges. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of nearly 13 years in taking action against the petitioner in relation to the charges framed against him is fatal and the impugned order passed on 2nd February, 1971, by the Director of Agriculture cannot be legally sustained.