AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kirubakaran, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of his
terminal benefits with interest at the rate of 18% as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner during the year 2007 stands
automatically quashed as per the direction of this Court passed in W.P. No. 15731 of 2009 on 29.09.2009.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Tiruchy on
30.09.1978 and subsequently he was promoted as Deputy Director of Medical Services, Dindigul on 01.11.2000 and he was due to retire on
31.12.2007.
Two days prior to his retirement, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 20.12.2007 by the second respondent alleging that
certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner and thereby causing a loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 26,000/-. Without prejudice
to the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was allowed to retire on the date of super-annuation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on
19.01.2008 and thereafter, there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 15731 of 2009 which
was disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.09.2009 and noting the delay in passing the final order, this Court passed the following order:
Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already reached the age of super-annuation in 2007 and as the allegations levelled against the
petitioner relate to the year 1999 to 2001 and also in consequence of this disciplinary proceedings, no terminal benefits have been disbursed to the
petitioner, the first respondent is directed to completed the enquiry and pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. In the event of failure on the part of the Government to pass final orders within the period, the charge memo dated 20.12.2007
will stand automatically quashed. With this the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently connected MPs are closed.
The above said order was passed on 29.09.2009 and time fixed was six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order for completing
the enquiry and pass final order. Subsequently, the order copy was served on the respondents and even after expiry of six months no order has
been passed.
In view of the order passed in the above writ petition, the charge memo automatically got quashed as no further order is necessary. The order
dated 29.09.2009 is a comprehensive order. To a query, Ms. Sri Devi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the power of Courts to
give direction to conclude the enquiry within a time limit and quashing of charge memo failure to conclude the enquiry in this dead line, the learned
Counsel submitted that once time limit has been fixed by the Court to conclude the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings and when there is a
order and there is no extention of time, the charge memo or impugned order therein is to be quashed automatically. To support on her contention,
the learned Counsel produced the following judgments:
1) B. Krishnan Vs. Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
2) Unreported judgment - State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, and Anr. v. T. Ranganathan in W.A. No. 1478 OF 2008
and 266 of 2009
3) Ramrao Ramachandra Datir v. State of Maharashtra 2005 II LLJ
4) Dr. N. Shahida Begum Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
In the above said judgments, once time limit has been fixed by the Court to conclude the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings there is no
extention of time, the charge memo or impugned order therein got to be quashed automatically.
In the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah 2007 (6) Supreme 97 the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:
We are of considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without reservation. If an
order is not complied with or ignored, there will be an end of rule of Law.
Admittedly the enquiry was not concluded within time limit fixed by this Court in W.P. No. 15731 of 2009 and there was no extention of time
limit. In view of the settled position of Law, the charge memo dated 20.12.2007 issued by the petitioner got automatically quashed. Consequent to
that, the petitioner is entitled to all the terminal benefits. The respondents are directed to disburse the terminal benefits to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.