P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashBy consent of both the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2009 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 10303 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed the impugned charge memo framed against the Respondent herein, the original writ petitioner.
3. According to the Respondent herein, he has joined as Steno Typist on 13.09.1974 in the Revenue Department, he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1989, as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1996 and he was ultimately promoted as Tahsildar in the year 2004. His date of superannuation was on 30.06.2009. The charge memo impugned in the writ petition issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules came to be issued against him on 29.06.2009, just one day prior to his date of superannuation. The crux of the charges as it is seen from the charge memo is that in the year 2005, as a Tahsildar, he has assigned lands to two persons, which were valued at Rs. 15,000/- in each of the cases. As per G.O.Ms. No. 60 Revenue Department dated 06.02.1999, the power of Tahsildar to assign lands is restricted only up to the value of Rs. 10,000/-. It is on the basis the charge memo was issued that the Respondent herein has failed to consider the valuation in respect of the lands due to negligence and assigned the lands. It is also admitted that as on date, the assignments made by the Respondent have been cancelled by the second Appellant herein.
4. In the writ petition, the Respondent herein assailed the charge memo on various grounds viz., the function of assignment of lands being quasi judicial in nature, the valuation having been prepared by the Revenue Inspector and other subordinate officers, who has fixed the value at Rs. 10,000/-, believing the same, the Respondent herein has passed the order and therefore, the assignment of lands is in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 60 dated 06.02.1999. It is the further case of the Respondent herein that the assignment of lands was made in the year 2005, however, the charge memo came to be issued just a day before his date of superannuation and therefore, there is an unexplained delay, which causes prejudice to the Respondent/writ petitioner. Lastly, the other officials, who have given the valuation, based on which the assignment of lands was made by him, were exonerated from the charges.
5. After having considered the said issues and also the submissions of the parties, the learned Single Judge, by treating the conduct of the Respondent herein in assignment of lands as quasi judicial in nature, by relying upon various judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
6. We have heard the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
7. It is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the assignment of lands by Tahsildar is not quasi judicial in nature and it is an administrative function and therefore, the Respondent herein is expected to act as per G.O.Ms. No. 60 Revenue Department dated 06.02.1999 and he should have verified the valuation given by the subordinate officers. Even though it is his submission that subsequently, the Appellants have cancelled the assignments granted in favour of the third parties, the case of the Appellants is that for the gross negligence on the part of the Respondent, he is liable to face the charges.
8. A reference to the order of the learned Single Judge, as stated above, shows that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the power of the Tahsildar under G.O.Ms. No. 60 Revenue Department dated 06.02.1999 in making the assignment of lands and also further guidelines issued by the Government makes the function as the quasi judicial function. The learned Single Judge has found from the materials available on record that the Respondent herein only exercised his jurisdiction for adjudication of assigning lands to the landless agriculturists.
9. Even though we do not subscribe to the view of the learned Single Judge regarding the function of the Tahsildar in assigning the lands, which can be otherwise treated as Administrative function, which resulted the Tahsildar to act as per G.O.Ms. No. 60 Revenue Department dated 06.02.1999, by which a duty has been contemplated on him to verify the correctness of the value of the lands, we are of the view that when the assignment of lands itself was in the year 2005, the Appellants herein have taken steps only in the year 2009, having waited till the date of superannuation of the Respondent herein. Even though it is stated in the grounds of Appeal that the Appellants received the complaint only in the year 2009, there are no materials to substantiate the same. In the absence of any such materials, we have to consider that there is no proper explanation for the delay from the date of occurrence. Even otherwise, a reference to the charge memo makes it clear that as an Assignment Officer, the Respondent herein has relied upon the valuation made by the Revenue Inspector and it cannot be said that the said persons have no connection with the assignment of lands at all. In such view of the matter, at best, it can be treated only as negligence in not verifying the valuation given by the Revenue Inspector. It is also not disputed that charges against the Revenue Inspector and other subordinate officers have been subsequently dropped.
10. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the Respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the Appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The Appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the Appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the Appellant should not be made to suffer.
11. As far as the delay in framing the charges is concerned, the law is well settled that if there is unexplained delay in framing of charges against the Government servants and if it is detrimental to the Government Servant, then it is liable to be set aside. Applying the said ratio and following the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, one of us (P. Jyothimani, J) in M. Elangovan v. The Trichy District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2006 (2) C.T.C. 635 has held as follows:
14. It is in this regard, the judgment of the Apex Court is a guiding factor wherein, the Supreme Court has categorically held that keeping an official under charges and disputing integrity would cause unbearable agony and distress to the officer concerned stating that the protracted disciplinary enquiry against the Government employees should be avoided not only in the interest of the employee but also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. Therefore, the Supreme Court heavily came down against the protracted enquiry and put an end to the said enquiry.
12. In said circumstances, we are of the view that the delay of nearly five years from the date of occurrence to the date of framing of charges has not been satisfactorily explained and the charges are also not so serious, which at best can be treated as innocent mistake and do not constitute misconduct.
13. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and the charge memo impugned in the writ petition is set aside for the reasons, which we have stated above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD) Nos. 2 and 3 of 2010 are also dismissed.
