Sathiadev, J.

Petitioner in WP No. 33 of 1988 is the appellant and two respondents therein are the respondents herein (ranking of parties as in Writ Petition)

2. On petitioner being served with a memo dated 10th December, 1987 issued by the Second respondent, farming charge-sheet against him that he has been receiving prohibition mamool, as illegal gratification during the year 1982, he has preferred the writ petition claiming that, for an occurrence alleged to have taken place in May, 1982, a charge memo served upon him in December, 1987 is without authority of law and that respondents have not given reasons for the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him and that when one Perumal, his colleague, who is said to have disbursed the mamool to him having been acquitted in the proceedings initiated against him earlier in point of time and if the disciplinary proceeding based on such a charge memo is to be proceeded with petitioner would be greatly prejudiced : and that principles of natural justice would be violated, if such belated disciplinary proceedings are launched,

3. Learned Judge repelled these contentions and dismissed the writ petition, and therefore