Head notes /M Ravi Advocate / A) Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 – Rule 17(b) – Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 – Delay in disciplinary proceedings – Petitioner, a Village Administrative Officer, was dismissed after a decade-long delay in proceedings for alleged irregularities in land issuance – The court found the delay prejudicial and discriminatory, as co-delinquents faced lesser penalties – The court emphasized the need for timely resolution in disciplinary matters. (Paras 3, 4, 25, 27

[09/05, 10:03] sekarreporter1: [09/05, 10:02] sekarreporter1: Cases Referred:
N.Nandagopalan Vs. The Secretary to Government, W.P.No.28301 of 2005, dated 24.04.2006 – relied upon
discrimination – Established that if several employees are involved in the same incident, the Department should proceed against all or none.
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 – relied upon
evidence – Held that the report of the Enquiry Officer cannot be based on mere surmises and conjectures.
M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India, 2006 5 SCC 88 – referred to
delay – Highlighted that unexplained delay can cause serious prejudice to the delinquent.
Ranjith Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) CTC 781 – referred to
delay – Reiterated that inordinate delay can be grounds for setting aside penalties.
P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 4 CTC 403 – referred to
delay – Confirmed that unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can lead to setting aside of penalties.
B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, W.P.No.34197 of 2016, dated 12.04.2022 – referred to
delay – Discussed the implications of inordinate delay in disciplinary actions.
Advocates: Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Ravi
For the Respondent : Mr.T.Chezhiyan , AGP
ORDER
[09/05, 10:03] sekarreporter1: 👍
[09/05, 10:03] sekarreporter1: [09/05, 10:02] sekarreporter1: Cases Referred:
N.Nandagopalan Vs. The Secretary to Government, W.P.No.28301 of 2005, dated 24.04.2006 – relied upon
discrimination – Established that if several employees are involved in the same incident, the Department should proceed against all or none.
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 – relied upon
evidence – Held that the report of the Enquiry Officer cannot be based on mere surmises and conjectures.
M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India, 2006 5 SCC 88 – referred to
delay – Highlighted that unexplained delay can cause serious prejudice to the delinquent.
Ranjith Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) CTC 781 – referred to
delay – Reiterated that inordinate delay can be grounds for setting aside penalties.
P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 4 CTC 403 – referred to
delay – Confirmed that unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can lead to setting aside of penalties.
B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, W.P.No.34197 of 2016, dated 12.04.2022 – referred to
delay – Discussed the implications of inordinate delay in disciplinary actions.
Advocates: Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Ravi
For the Respondent : Mr.T.Chezhiyan , AGP
ORDER
[09/05, 10:03] sekarreporter1: 👍
[09/05, 10:04] sekarreporter1: [09/05, 10:01] sekarreporter1: Head notes /M Ravi Advocate / A) Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 – Rule 17(b) – Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 – Delay in disciplinary proceedings – Petitioner, a Village Administrative Officer, was dismissed after a decade-long delay in proceedings for alleged irregularities in land issuance – The court found the delay prejudicial and discriminatory, as co-delinquents faced lesser penalties – The court emphasized the need for timely resolution in disciplinary matters. (Paras 3, 4, 25, 27)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner was not provided with the opportunity to review the recommendation of the Commission before dismissal, violating natural justice principles. (Paras 22, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was charged with irregularities in land issuance, faced a delayed disciplinary process, and was dismissed without a joint enquiry with co-delinquents.

Findings of Court:
The court found the delay unacceptable and discriminatory, leading to the dismissal being set aside.

Issues: The main issues included the inordinate delay in proceedings, lack of joint enquiry, and violation of natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unexplained delays in disciplinary proceedings can lead to prejudice against the employee, and that all involved parties should face equal scrutiny.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; dismissal set aside, and petitioner permitted to retire with benefits.
[09/05, 10:03] sekarreporter1: 👍