@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashWith the consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Petitioner entered in the Tamil Nadu Government Service as Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in 1977. Later, he was promoted as Joint Registrar of Co-operatives. Whileso, three disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in R.C. No. 220/95, TDP 1/99 and R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I.
4. As far as the disciplinary proceedings initiated in R.C. No. 220/95, is concerned, a final order dated 20.04.2004, was passed, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, on the Petitioner.
5. In respect of charge memo in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I, dated 05.05.1995, an enquiry was conducted in 1995 itself. The enquiry officer gave his report dated 09.11.1999, holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are not proved.
6. Disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the 1st Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 08.09.2000, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the 1st Respondent could not differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. In response to the same, the Petitioner submitted an explanation on 25.09.2000. Though 11 years have elapsed No. orders are passed in respect of charge memo in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I, dated 05.05.1995.
7. The Petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2006. Since two disciplinary proceedings were pending in TDP 1/99 and R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I, the Petitioner was placed under suspension and was also not permitted to retire from service, by order dated 30.06.2006.
8. In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed W.P. No. 22536 of 2006, questioning those proceedings. The said writ petition was disposed of, on 11.12.2008, directing the Respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
9. Whileso, a final order was passed in TDP 1/99 on 18.10.2010, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings initiated in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I dated 05.05.1995 alone is now pending. In the abovesaid circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the charge memo issued by the 2nd Respondent in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I.
10. The charge memo is impugned on two grounds. Firstly, the show cause notice dated 08.09.2000 was issued, differing with the findings of the enquiry officer, for which, the Petitioner submitted the explanation on 25.09.2000, but the 2nd Respondent has not chosen to pass final orders even after 11 years.
11. The second ground is that since the major penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed on the Petitioner, by order dated 18.10.2010, in TDP 1/99, No. useful purpose would be served in keeping R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I dated 05.05.1995 pending.
12. In my view, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is correct in both the submissions. No. reason has been assigned by the Respondents for keeping R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I dated 05.05.1995 pending for the past 11 years, even after the enquiry was over and the 1st Respondent chose to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and accordingly, issued the show cause notice, with regard to disagreement, for which, the Petitioner also submitted his explanation on the disagreement.
13. In fact, the occurrence relating to the charge memo in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I, is of the year 1990-91 and now, nearly 20 years have elapsed. It is a different matter if the Petitioner is responsible for causing the delay in completing the enquiry. But, it is not so. The enquiry was over long back and the report was also submitted in 1999 itself. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, issued a show cause notice as stated above and the Petitioner also gave an explanation to the same. It is not known as to why the 1st Respondent has not taken any decision so far, on the explanation one way or other, even after 11 year.
14. The unexplained delay of eleven years in the circumstances of the case, particularly, when the Petitioner was inflicted with the major penalty of compulsory retirement would render the proceedings in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I vitiated. On 11.12.2008, this Court also directed the Respondents to complete the enquiry within six months. However, the 1st Respondent has not chosen to complete the disciplinary proceedings in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I, and he completed the disciplinary proceedings in sofaras TDP 1/99 is concerned and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.
15. In the abovesaid circumstances of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned charge memo. Accordingly, the impugned charge memo in R.C. No. 275/95 PA.I dated 05.05.1995, is quashed. The 1st Respondent is directed to settle the monetary benefits due and payable to the Petitioner, pursuant to compulsory retirement, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No. costs.
