The main legal point established in the judgment is that inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuing charge memos with a pre-determined view violates the principles of natural justice.

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. In all these Writ Petitions common issues are involved therefore, they are taken together for common order.

3. In W.P. Nos. 966 to 969 of 2005, the petitioners are the Village Panchayat Assistants working in Ilamanur Village Panchayat, Thirumogur Village Panchayat, Arumbanur Village Panchayat, Melarnadai Village Panchayat respectively, under the control of Madurai East Panchayat Union.

4. In W.P. Nos. 876 to 879 of 2005, the petitioners are the Village Panchayat Assistants in Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village Panchayat, Kodimarigalarn Village Panchayat, Karadipatti Village Panchayat, Vadapalanji Village Panchayat respectively, under the control of Thiruparankundram. Panchayat Union.

5. In W.P. No. 643 of 2006, the petitioner is the Village Panchayat Assistant in Nilaiyoor. 1st Bit Village Panchayat under the control of Thiruparankundram Panchayat Union.

6. In all these cases, the first respondent being the Collector is Inspector' of Panchayats as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. In these cases, the petitioners who have worked as Village Panchayat Assistants were issued with impugned charge memo in respect of the alleged wrong doings while purchasing uniform from the funds of various Panchayat unions in the years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 and distributing the same and directing the petitioners therein to submit their explanations as to why they should not be removed from service.

7. According to the petitioners, the Village Panchayat Assistant post is a civil post under the State of Tamil Nadu. In respect of the petitioners in W.P. No. 966 to 969 of 2005 by P memo dated 02.02.2005 by the first respondent to the second respondent directing the second respondent to direct the third respondent to issue charge memo to the petitioners and giving reasonable opportunity to defend their case before they are terminated from service and inform the same after termination.

8. In respect of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 876 to 879 of 2005, the third respondent has issued charge memo dated 1.2.2005 directing as to why the petitioners should not dismissed from service for having abetted the Block Development Officer, Special Officer, and Extension Officer in causing monetary loss in respect of the above said purchase.

9. Likewise, in respect of the petitioner in W.P. No. 643 of 2006 a similar charge memo dated 3.2.2005 came to be issued by the third respondent. Again in respect of the petitioners in W.P. No. 966 to 969 of 2005, the third respondent has issued the impugned charge memo dated 9.2.2005 against the petitioners why they should not be remove from service. The said charge memo issued by the third respondent as per the direction of the second respondent, who acted as per the directions of the first respondent as stated above.

10. The petitioners would state that in respect of these purchases effected in the year 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 of Dhoties, Sarees, Shirting, Cloth, Bed, etc. for distribution to the Village Panchayat Assistants, the respondents took cognizance of the issue even in the year 1996 and initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Block Development Officer, Extension Officer and therefore, they were aware of the incidents and in spite of it the impugned charge memos are issued to the petitioners after a lapse of nearly 10 years after the incident. Even, the first and second respondents were aware of these incidents in the year 1995 and in spite of the same, all of a sudden in January 2005 they have issued a direction to the third respondent to issue charge memo. The charge memo has been challenged on various grounds by the petitioners including the ground that there is an inordinate delay in framing the charges and also the charges are framed with closed mind with a pre-determined idea of punishing the petitioners some how or the other. The petitioners