Corruption Is Deep-Rooted, Orders Tribunals to Wrap Up Pending Probes : Madras HC [Read Order]

Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings across Tamil Nadu to conclude long-pending corruption-related enquiries against several government officials within three to four months, while flagging that the state currently has no independent, full-time Vigilance Commissioner to monitor such cases.

Justice B. Pugalendhi passed a common order disposing of a batch of writ petitions and writ miscellaneous petitions, all tagged together as they pertained to proceedings pending before various Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings. Among these was a plea by C. Akila, an Assistant Engineer in a Panchayat Union, facing an enquiry initiated in 2015 over alleged misappropriation of government funds under the Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme to the tune of Rs.6,75,623/- during 2008-2009 and 2010-2011, without constructing the sanctioned houses and by creating forged and fabricated documents. The court had earlier, on 11.07.2025, directed the Tribunal at Tiruchirappalli to conclude this enquiry within four months, a direction that had still not been complied with by the time of the present order.

The State sought a further six months to conclude the enquiry against Akila, while Akila herself filed separate petitions seeking a post reserved for her in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, and challenging the charge memo framed against her as pending for over ten years. A similarly delayed enquiry concerned M. Rathinam, against whom charges relating to the Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme were framed by the Tribunal on 09.08.2024, with the court having earlier directed disposal within four months from 27.06.2025, a timeline the Commissioner of the Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, sought to extend by twelve months.

The batch also included a petition by P. Muruganandam, Additional Transport Commissioner, who faced disciplinary proceedings over alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets worth Rs.78,75,935/-, and who had been placed under suspension just before superannuation and not permitted to retire; a petition by Ganga Parameswari, an Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, facing an enquiry after she was found in possession of Rs.7,500/- in her handbag during a raid without satisfactory explanation; and a petition by a Headmaster and a Junior Assistant of a government school in Virudhunagar district, from whom Rs.13,000/- in unaccounted money was recovered during a surprise inspection, seeking quashing of the charge memo on the ground that the proceedings had crossed the prescribed time limit.

Examining the framework governing these Tribunals, constituted under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the court noted that corruption cases are referred to the Tribunals, which function under the administrative control of the Vigilance Commissioner. The time limit for completion of such enquiries, prescribed as far back as 1987, was reiterated through G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, which fixed one year for the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to complete investigation, one year for the Tribunal to complete enquiry, and four months for final orders. Despite these orders, the court observed that corruption-related disciplinary proceedings continue to remain pending for years, with delinquent officers under suspension drawing full pay and allowances throughout.

On the State furnishing details of pendency before the six Tribunals, the court recorded that a total of 170 cases were pending, of which 52 were pending for over one year, 49 for over two years, 34 for over three years, 8 for over four years and 27 for over five years. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the Vigilance Commissioner and the Commissioner for Administrative Reforms had been conducting periodic review meetings with the Commissioners for Disciplinary Proceedings, and that all six Commissioners had been instructed to give priority to cases pending beyond one year and to complete enquiries expeditiously.

The court held that the Vigilance Commissioner, who is expected to monitor enquiries before the Tribunals, must track the number of witnesses examined daily, ensure timely production of witnesses, and ensure regular appearance of Public Prosecutors before the Tribunals. Referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Ram Singh's case, reported in 2000 AIR SC 454, where the court had observed:

“Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle... Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them.”

The court further observed that the Tribunals, presently headed by District Revenue Officers, were headed by Judicial Officers until 1976 before being replaced by administrative officers, and held that they ought to be headed by Judicial Officers in the rank of District Judge, as contemplated under Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, or by IAS officers. Noting that the State Vigilance Commission, established in 1965 on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee, is presently headed by a senior officer holding the post only as an additional charge alongside a major department, the court held that a “separate Vigilance Commissioner is the need of this hour” to monitor vigilance cases effectively, and observed that corruption can be eradicated only through dedicated and consistent action by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.

Every government has been declaring that they are against corruption, however, the reality has been otherwise. Corruption is deep-rooted everywhere, which can be eradicated by dedicated and consistent action. That can be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.

In its final directions, the court allowed the petitions filed by the Tribunals seeking extension of time, but granted only three months, and not the six to twelve months sought, to conclude the enquiries against Akila and Rathinam, directing that this be done without any further extension being sought. The writ petitions filed by Muruganandam, Ganga Parameswari, and the Headmaster and Junior Assistant from Virudhunagar were disposed of with a direction to the concerned Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings to conclude the enquiries within four months from receipt of a copy of the order. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.

Appearances: Mr. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader, and Mr. G.V. Vairam Santhosh and Mr. M. Sarangan, Additional Government Pleaders, appeared for the petitioners/respondents representing the State and the Tribunals. Mr. G.R. Sathish, Mr. R. Ramesh Mahadev, Mr. E.K. Kumaresan, Mr. C. Raja and Mr. H. Mohamed Imran appeared for the respective private petitioners and respondents.

Case Title: The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings & Ors. versus M. Rathinam & Anr., and batch matters.

[Read Order]