The main legal point established in the judgment is that inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings and the unexplained issuance of fresh charge memos after a significant period of time can lead to the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and the regularization of the suspension period as duty for all purposes, with the award of all benefits to the petitioners.

(Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (i) for issuance a writ of certiorari to call for records pertaining to order dated 17-01-2002 made in Original Application No. 5664/92, conveyed in the common order dated 17-1-2002 in O.A.Nos. 5664/92 and 6921/1993 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same; and (ii) for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to drop disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 23-5-1990 issued by the first respondent in his Letter No. 45053/Service D/82-53 as done to the co-delinquents namely M.A. Khyum, P. Senthur Pandian and S. Mahalingam and consequently to treat the period of suspension from 5-6-1978 to 5-6-1981 as duty for all purposes and award all benefits as done to the co-delinquents namely M.A. Khyum, P. Senthur Pandian and S. Mahalingam.)

COMMON ORDER

P. Sathasivam, J

Aggrieved by common order dated 17-01-2002 made in O.A.No.5664 of 1992 of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, A. Obaidhullah has filed W.P.No.32335 of 2002 for quashing of the said order.

2. One N. Manoharan has filed W.P.No. 29566 of 2004 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent-Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge memo dated 23-05-90 as done to the co-delinquents, namely, M.A. Khyum, P. Senthur Pandian and S. Mahalingam and consequently treat the period of suspension from 5-6-1978 to 5-6-1981 as duty for all purposes and award all benefits as done to the said co-delinquents.

3. The case of A. Obaidhullah is briefly stated hereunder:

He served as Second Grade Warder from 11-11-1971 to 05-06-1978 and was under suspension from 6-6-1978 to 13-11-1981. After revocation of suspension, he worked as Second Grade Warder from 14-11-1981 to 10-6-1983, thereafter, as First Grade Warder between 11-6-1983 and 15-7-1998 and Chief Head Warder from 15-7-98 to 23-10-99. He was promoted as Assistant Jailer on 20-10-1999 and has been working as such. The State of Tamil Nadu appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Ismail as One Man Commission ("Commission" in short) to enquire into certain allegations of harassment and ill-treatment of political prisoners at Central Prison, Madras, during 1976-77. The Commission found certain officials and subordinates responsible for the alleged beatings of the detenus in the Central Prison, Madras. The petitioner was one among those indicted in the report. He was, therefore, placed under suspension by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1254 Home Department dated 5-6-1978, pending enquiry on the above allegations. The above suspension was revoked subsequently by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2598 Home Department dated 13-11-1981. He resumed duty on 14-11-1981. He has been given three promotions as First Grade Warder, Chief Head Warder and Assistant Jailor.

4. In G.O.Ms.No.1249-Home Department dated 5-6-78, Thiru N. Natarajan, I.A.S., then Member, Board of Revenue, was appointed by the first respondent as Enquiry Officer for taking suitable action against the officials of the Prison Department responsible for their acts of omission and commission pointed out by the Commission. The Enquiry Officer issued to the petitioner a memorandum of charges dated 29-8-1978 under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as he was one of the 3 warders indicted by the Commission. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo and requested the enquiry officer to exonerate him from the charges. For over 12 years, the petitioner did not receive either from the first respondent or the Enquiry Officer any communication. While so, due to change of Government, the petitioner received a letter dated 5-12-90 on 21-12-90 from the first respondent. The said letter stated that, in supersession of the charge memo dated 29-8-78 framed and issued by T