P. Sathasivam, J.

The above writ petition is directed against the charge memorandum of the second respondent dated nil calling for the petitioner to submit written statement of defence within 10 days to quash the same and for consequential direction to the second respondent to consider and promote him as senior assistant with effect from 13 January 1998, with all service and monetary benefits.

According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as clerk in the municipality and was subsequently absorbed in the Villianur Commune Panchayat service as junior assistant with effect from 11 November 1974. The second respondent-Villianur Commune Panchayat published a seniority list of junior assistants on 12 November 1987, in which his name figures at serial No. 5. He is fully qualified for promotion to the next higher post of senior assistant and has been making representations to consider his case and to promote him to the next higher post. While so, the second respondent has served on him the impugned charge-memo alleging that he had committed irregularities in the year 1982. He submitted his explanation, dated 14 November 1997, denying the charges. It is stated that in the statement of imputation of misconduct the charges are explained and the whole statement is vague and totally unclear and totally meaningless and he is not in a position to understand the same. By order, dated 13 January 1998, his juniors were promoted as senior assistants, while he has been denied the same on account of the pendency of the impugned charge-memo. He is otherwise entitled to be promoted as senior assistant. The impugned charge-memo was served on the petitioner after a delay of 15 years from the date of occurrence which clearly deprives the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself. Inasmuch as the charge-memo was served on the petitioner after a delay of 15 years from the date of occurrence and the two charges contained in the impugned charge-memo are vague and not specific, the same was served only to deprive him of his due promotion, he has approached this Court by way of present writ petition to quash the charge-memo.The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption have probed into the serious misconduct of the petitioner in the office of the Villianur Commune Panchayat during the year 1982 in the process of execution of NREP. It is not within the hands of the second respondent to assume certain strings and proceed against the petitioner without the relevant document, since the police after investigation had submitted a report in the year 1993 to the Government which after consideration of the report had sent the same to the office of the Villianur Commune Panchayat for taking further action into the matter and in that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings in Memo, dated 5 November 1997, has been issued to the petitioner by which the petitioner was called upon to answer the serious misconduct and grave charges. He was given 10 days time to give his written representation in answer to the charges, dated 5 November 1997. Instead of submitting his written representation and without answering the charges the petitioner has approached this Court and putforth unsustainable claims to justify his misconduct under the pretext of delay in launching disciplinary proceedings. Inasmuch as the misconduct, which took place from 1982 was enquired by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption of Pondicherry Government and submitted its report only in the year 1993, the second respondent initiated the impugned proceedings on 5 November 1997. It is always open to the petitioner to putforth all his defence in the proposed enquiry. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.Sri D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the pe