1 W.A.(MD)NO.1056 OF 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2023 The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Appellant / Respondent Vs. Baby Padma ... Respondent / Petitioner Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow this writ appeal and set aside the order dated 16.06.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.1585 of 2020. For Appellant : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman * * * 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.A.(MD)NO.1056 OF 2023 J U D G M E N T (Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides. 2.One Radhakrishnan was working as an Agricultural Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu. Charge memo dated 21.12.2001 was issued to him. It contained as many as nine articles of charge. The enquiry officer's report was adverse to the delinquent. After getting the delinquent's further representation, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 30.12.2019 dismissing him from service. It is relevant to note that the employee had reached the age of superannuation on 28.02.2015 itself and that he was not allowed to retire but retained in service. Challenging the dismissal order dated 30.12.2019, Radhakrishnan filed W.P.(MD)No. 1585 of 2020. During the pendency of the writ petition, he passed away and his wife came on record. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.06.2022 allowed the writ petition. Challenging the same, this writ appeal came to be filed by the department. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 W.A.(MD)NO.1056 OF 2023 3.We notice that the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition and set aside the order impugned in the writ petition primarily on two grounds:- a) The department had taken 18 long years to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. b) The order of the disciplinary authority is utterly non-speaking. 4.We come to the conclusion that both the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are justified. We wanted to know if the delinquent by his conduct contributed to the delay. It is not so. In fact, it was the delinquent who had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.3659 of 2015 and obtained direction for concluding the proceedings within a period of three months. 5. We went through the disciplinary authority's order. Though it runs to 17 pages, it is a mere extraction of the findings of the enquiry officer and the explanation of the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority had virtually disposed of the matter in a single sentence. The relevant portion reads as follows : 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.A.(MD)NO.1056 OF 2023 “... jdpah; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lfspy; 3> 6> 7> 8 kw;Wk; 9 Mfpa Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; ep&gzkhfpd;wd vd;w tprhuiz mYtyhpd; mwpf;ifapid Vw;W ep&gpf;fg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F jz;lidahf jdpaiu gzpawT (Dismissal from service) nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. ” Such an approach is not expected from a disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority must first set out the circumstances that led to the issuance of the charge memo. The articles of charge must then be extracted. The defence taken by the delinquent must be summarised. The substance of the enquiry report together with the findings must be captured. Then follows the most important part. He has to carefully apply his mind to the contentions taken by the delinquent in his further representation and confirm whether the findings of the enquiry officer can still hold good. The disciplinary authority is obliged to deal with every contention raised by the delinquent in his further representation. In other words, the order must be a speaking one. An order bereft of reasons is no order. He must also record his satisfaction with regard to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority must clearly record a finding that there was compliance with the principles of natural justice 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 W.A.(MD)NO.1056 OF 2023 throughout. That the disciplinary proceedings were throughout characterised by fairness must be evident on a mere reading of the final order passed by the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the disciplinary authority does not meet the standard laid down above. 6.We are of the view that both the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are good enough. The writ petition was rightly allowed. Interference with the said order is not called for. This writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) 19th June 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 W.A.(MD)NO.1056 OF 2023 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. PMU W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2023 19.06.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis