The Original Application in O.A.No.1625 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner joined as Village Administrative Officer in 1984 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He worked as Village Administrative Officer in Periyanegamam Village, Pollachi between 1985 and 1986. Since he was selected as B.T.Assistant in 1986, he resigned from the post of Village Administrative Officer and his resignation dated 23.09.1986 was accepted by the competent authority by an order dated 25.09.1986. Now, he is working as B.T.Assistant in Education Department.
3.While so, a charge memo dated 19.11.1996 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging that while he was serving as Village Administrative Officer in Periyanegamam Village, he issued property certificates to four persons containing false particulars, based on which, the Tahsildar issued solvency certificates to those persons to participate in the bidding for toddy shops. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D).No.561, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 29.09.2000 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.
4.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1625 of 2001 (W.P.No.2774/2007) to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.09.2000.
5.Heard Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sreenivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:
a)The very initiation of the departmental action belatedly after ten years for certain events that took place between 1985 and 1986 would vitiate the impugned order.
b)Since he was employed in the Revenue Department, the respondent has no power and jurisdiction to issue the charge memo. The impugned order imposing the punishment was passed just because one of the persons who was charged along with the petitioner belongs to the respondent Department.
c)The disciplinary action is without jurisdiction since the petitioner resigned from the service and once the resignation is accepted, no disciplinary action could be initiated by the respondent.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader who made his submissions based on instructions, seeks to sustain the impugned order and submits that the impugned order was passed based on a detailed report of the Enquiry Officer.
8.I have considered the submissions made on either side. The competent authority accepted the resignation submitted by the petitioner by an order dated 25.09.1986. The order accepting the resignation is as follows:-
"bghs;shr;rp cjtp Ml;rpah; mth;fspd; eltof;iffs;
jpUkjp.!;kpjh ehfuh$; ,.m.g./ e.f.16471/86 m3. ehs;- 25.9.86 bghUs; - fpuhk eph;thfk; - bghs;shr;rp tl;lk; - bghpa befkk; fpuhkk; - fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; - fpl;Lrhkp/ (jpU) rp. gzptpyfy; bra;jJ - Vw;Wf; bfhs;sg;gl;L Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.
bghs;shr;rp tl;lk;/ bghpabefkk; fpuhkk;/ fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; jpU.fpl;Lrhkp jkpH;ehL bghJg;gzpj; njh;thizf; FGtpy; njh;e;bjLf;fg;gl;L jkpH;ehL gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; bray;Kiwfs; (gzpahsh; (bjhFjp) e.f.vz;.435738/rp1/84 ehs; 15.09.86d; go thy;ghiw tl;lk;/ nrhiyahh; miz muR cah;epiyg; gs;spapy; cjtp Mrphpauhf gzpepakdk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy;/ bghpa befkk; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; gjtpia gzp tpyfy; bra;tjhft[k;/ jdJ gzp tpyfiy Vw;W MizapLkhW nfl;L tpz;zg;gpj;Js;shh;.
bghpa befkk; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; jpU.fpl;Lrhkp 21.09.86 tiu tNy; bra;j muRg;gzj;ij 22.09.86e; njjp brYj;jp tpl;lhh; vd;Wk;/ 22.09.86k; njjpa urPJ g[j;jf';fis epy tUtha; Ma;thshplk; xg;gilj;J tpl;ljhft[k;/ fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; kw;Wk; rpy msitg; gapw;rp nkw;bfhz;lJ bjhlh;ghd gapw;rpf;fl;lzk; +.150 ia 24.09.86y; brYj;jptpl;ljhft[k;/ ,th; muRf;F brYj;j ntz;oa bjhif VJk; epYitapy; ,y;iy vd;Wk; bjhptpj;J ,tuJ gzp tpyfiy Vw;W Mizaplyhk; vd bghs;shr;rp tl;lhl;rpah; ghpe;Jiu bra;Js;shh;.
vdnt bghs;shr;rp tl;lk;/ bghpabefkk; fpuhkk;/ fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; jpU.rp.fpl;Lrhkpapd; gzp tpyfy; Vw;Wf; bfhs;sg;gl;L nkw;goahh; gzpapypUe;J cldoahf tpLtpj;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwhh;."
9.After accepting the resignation, the petitioner was relieved from service. Thereafter, he joined as a fresh entrant in the Education Department as B.T.Assistant. Once the resignation is accepted, his past service in the post which he held is forfeited as per Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules is extracted here-under:
"41.Consequences of resignation A member of a service shall if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but all his previous service under the Government.
The reappointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such reappointment he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order:
Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall effect the operation of proviso to rule 23 or of rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules, 1978."
10.Once the petitioner resigned from service, the relationship of master and servant has ceased to exit. Therefore, the respondent Government can have no disciplinary control over the employees who have resigned from job and whose resignation were accepted by the competent authority. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in respect of SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION reported in AIR 2003 SC 788. The principles laid down therein applies to the facts of this case. A passage from para 6 of the said judgment is extracted here-under:
".... Therefore, the question for our consideration is whether Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman of the Commission ought, on the ground of misbehaviour referred to in the course of the Reference, to be removed from the office of the Chairman of the Commission. When an incumbent in office has ceased to hold the said office, the question of removing such a person from office would not arise at all."
11.Since the disciplinary action is without jurisdiction as no disciplinary action could be initiated against a person who resigned from the job, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I am in entire agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of my findings on the third submission, it is not necessary to deal with the other submissions. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
22.12.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes TK D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK To The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
W.P.NO.2774 OF 2007 22.12.2009