(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent i.e., the Director of Agriculture, Chennai in his Memo No. ViPaPi1/51071/2024 dated 16.09.2024 which was communicated by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Thanjavur in his Ka.No.A4/10911/2024 dated 23.09.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents i.e., the Agricultural Production Commissioner / Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Chennai and the Director of Agriculture, Chennai to provide regular promotion to the petitioner as Deputy Director of Agriculture as per the approved list communicated in G.O.(Ms)No.12 Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (AA.1) Department, dated 08.01.2024, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.)

1. The petitioner, working as an Assistant Director of Agriculture, was issued with a charge memo dated 16.09.2024, alleging that he had not adduced evidence as per the statement given by him before the Investigation Agency and that he had turned hostile in S.C.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. Challenging the said charge memo, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:

                   (i)The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department arranged a trap against a Tahsildar at Chatram in Thanjavur District in the year 2014. On the request of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, who conducted the trap, the petitioner, who was working as a Seed Certification Officer, accompanied him during the trap proceedings on 17.11.2014. The trap was successfully conducted and a final report was filed against the Tahsildar, alleging that he had received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from one M.Abuthahir. The said case was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, in Spl.C.No.10 of 2015. The petitioner was cited as PW-4, as he had accompanied the complainant and witnessed the phenolphthalein test and other trap proceedings.

                   (ii)Though the final report was filed in the year 2015, the petitioner was examined in chief only on 20.12.2022 and his chief examination was recorded, however, he was not cross-examined on that day. Thereafter, he was recalled for cross-examination on 28.07.2023. During his crossexamination, he is stated to have deposed that the phenolphthalein test was not conducted immediately and that the officers of the Vigilance Department ascertained the purpose for which the accused officer had received the money and thereafter, they conducted the phenolphthalein test. The said statement was considered to be contradictory to the statement given by the petitioner before the Investigation Officer, as well as his chief examination. Therefore, the Deputy Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, has addressed a letter on 13.03.2024 to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, recommending to initiate departmental action as against the petitioner, for the same. Based on this communication, the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, has addressed a letter to the Director of Seed Certification, Chennai, on 02.04.2024 to initiate departmental action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned charge memo was issued against the petitioner alleging that he had turned hostile during the trial in Spl.C.No.10 of 2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, during his cross-examination on 28.07.2023.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned charge memo on the ground that it was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in order to prevent the petitioner from being promoted. He further submitted that the petitioner was not treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution during the trial and that he had not deposed anything prejudicial to the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had deposed based on his memory, since he was crossexamined, almost ten years after the occurrence.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Civil side) submitted that the impugned charge memo was issued, based on the communication from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, which was addressed to the Director of Seed Certification. The same was issued because the petitioner, who was examined as official witness for the prosecution, had provided contradictory evidence during the trial in Spl.C.No.10 of 2015.

5. Considering the rival submissions made, this Court, by its earlier order dated 19.08.2026, suo motu impleaded the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, as a party to this proceedings and sought clarification regarding the communication dated 13.03.2024, addressed to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

6. Pursuant to the same, the letter dated 13.03.2024 addressed by the Deputy Legal Advisor to the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption and the communication dated 02.04.2024 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Central Range, to the Director of Seed Certification have been placed before this Court. A copy of the evidence adduced by the petitioner before the trial Court has also been placed before this Court.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials.

8. The petitioner, who was working as a Seed Certification Officer, has accompanied the officials of the Vigilance Department, during trap proceedings conducted on 17.11.2014, as against a Tahsildar. Therefore, the petitioner was cited as PW-4, as he had witnessed the trap proceedings and phenolphthalein test. He was examined-in-chief on 20.12.2022 and was not cross-examined on the same day. Thereafter, he was recalled for cross-examination on 28.07.2023 (i.e.) 7 months after the chief examination.

9. A perusal of the materials shows that the petitioner was not treated as a hostile witness during the trial. Moreover, for the trap arranged in the year 2014, the petitioner was requested to be a witness and accordingly, he witnessed the trap proceedings. The final report was filed in the year 2015 itself. However, the trial commenced only in the year 2022 and the Vigilance Department had not taken any steps to conduct the trial for nearly seven years.

10. The petitioner was examined in chief on 20.12.2022, however, he was not cross-examined on that day, which ought to have been objected to, by the Deputy Legal Advisor of the Vigilance Department. However, the same was not done. Thereafter, the petitioner was recalled for cross-examination on 28.07.2023. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the phenolphthalein test was not conducted immediately and that it was conducted after enquiring the accused officer, about the receipt of money by him. This statement would not affect the case of the prosecution, however, it is not known as to why the Deputy Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, had sought departmental action against the petitioner and why the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, had consequently addressed the communication to the Director of Seed Certification, for taking departmental action against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, has acted mechanically on the recommendation of the Deputy Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, and the second respondent has also issued the impugned charge memo, without proper application of mind, on the basis of the communication dated 02.04.2024 issued by the Superintendent of Police.

11. It is reported that the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.4 in Spl.C.No.10 of 2015, was not treated as a hostile witness and the trial is yet to be concluded. The trial Court has not drawn any adverse inference based on the evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned charge memo has been issued without proper application of mind.

12. Even assuming that the petitioner had given any contradictory evidence during his cross-examination, the trial Court has to decide the matter, based on the evidence adduced during his chief examination as well as the cross-examination, which was conducted after a period of seven months. Therefore, the trial Court shall also take into account the delay in conducting the cross-examination, while appreciating the evidence.

13. Since the impugned charge memo has been issued in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge memo dated 16.09.2024 is set aside. In the event, if the petitioner's promotion has been affected, in view of the impugned charge memo, the same shall be provided to him. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.