P.V. MAHADEVAN versus M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 08-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
P.V. MAHADEVAN 
v. 
M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD 
AUGUST 8, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Disciplinary proceedings-Delay in initiating of-Effect of-Housing 
Board-Superintending Engineer-Charged in 2000 for irregularity caused 
by him in issuing a sale deed in 1990-Held, allowing the Board to proceed 
further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very 
prejudicial to the officer-Keeping a higher government official under 
charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental 
agony and distress to the officer concerned-Protracted disciplinary enquiry 
against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the 
interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the 
interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees-
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 
E for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be 
suffer-Charge memo issued against the appellant quashed. 
F 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Anr., [1990) Supp. SCC 
738 and State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan, (1998] 4 SCC 154, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4901 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.2004 of the Madras High 
Court in W.P. No. 7854 of 2001. 
G 
V. Prabhakar, R.S. Krishna Kumar, Rakesh Garg, Ashok K. Sadhu 
Khan and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant. 
R. Venkataramani, R. Ayyam Perumal and S. Vallinayagam for the 
Respondent. 
H 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
474 
' 
-
P.V. MAHADEVAN v. M.D., TAMIL NADU HOUSG. BOARD 475 
Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the common order passed by the High 
Court of Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 297 and 331 of2001 and Writ Petition 
No. 7854/200 I filed by the appellant herein. Certain disciplinary actions were 
initiated against the appellant herein who was working as Superintending 
Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A charge memo was issued on 
8.6.2000. The appellant preferred a writ petition to call for the records, to 
quash the charge memo by the respondent and to forebear the respondent 
from in any manner proceeding with the charge memo against the appellant. 
Certain other consequential prayers have also been made in regard to the 
disbursement of monetary benefits, etc. 
Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 
charge memo had been issued in the year 2000 for the irregularity in issuing 
a sale deed in 1990 to one Mr. A.N. Beemaiah who was an employee of the 
Housing Board and was to superannuate shortly. Mr. Prabhakar also submitted 
A 
B 
c 
that though the records were very much available with the respondent, no 
D 
action has been taken against the appellant since 1990 for about IO years; 
that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the Housing Board for the 
inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary action against the appellant. Mr. 
Prabhakar placed strong reliance on the following two decisions of this Court 
in (i) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another, reported in [1990] 
E 
Supp. sec 738 and (ii) State of A.P. v. N Radhakrishan reported in [1998] 
4 SCC 154 and submitted that the High Court did not even consider any of 
these judgments, which were specifically referred in the writ petition. 
In the first case [ 1990] Supp. SCC 738, an 0.A. was filed by the officer 
concerned against initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings and issue 
of charge-sheet on· April, 22, 1987 in respect of certain incidents that 
happened in 1975;76 when the said officer was posted as Commandant 14th 
Battalion, SAF Gwalior. The Tribunal quashed the charge memo and the 
departmental enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in 
the initiation of the departmental proceedings with reference to an incident 
that took place in 1975-76. 
The appeal against the said order was filed in this Court on the ground 
that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the 
ground of delay and !aches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on 
to decide the matter on merits. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
This Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.