Due to inordinate delay in intimating about disciplinary proceeding the same was quashed.

In W.P. No.22226 of 2004, the petitioner has sought to quash the impugned Charge Memo dated 29.03.2004 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Coimbatore and in W.P. No.20998 of 2004, the impugned Charge Memo dated 26.05.2004 passed by the first respondent is under challenge.

2. Since the petitioner and the subject matter in both the writ petitions are one and the same, these petitions are decided by a common judgment.

3. The petitioner, who is working as an Assistant in Taluk Office, Tiruppur, entered his service as Junior Assistant on 02.01.1982 and was promoted to the post of Assistant on 20.09.1984. While so, he was issued with Charge Memo dated 29.03.2004 impugned in W.P. No.22226 of 2004 on the ground that he had appointed two contingent staff members, namely Rajendran and Anandan as Office Assistants on 16.08.1995 and 17.06.1995 respectively and with yet another Charge Memo dated 26.05.2004 impugned in W.P. No.20998 of 2004 on the ground that he had appointed one contingent staff by name P. Thangavelu contrary to G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance Department dated 24.08.1992.

4. According to the petitioner, the above three contingent staff were appointed as Office Assistant by the then Sub-Collector, Pollachi and thus, formulating charge Charge Memos against him alone and not questioning the officer concerned is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that he is only an Assistant and the Office Notes regarding the appointment of the said three persons as Office Assistants was dictated by the then Sub-Collector, verified by his P.A. and approved by the Sub-Collector himself and as such, he does not have any say in the matter of appointment of Office Assistants.

5. In response, the District Revenue Office has filed counter and according to him, suppressing the ban imposed by G.O. Ms.No.666 Finance dated 24.08.1992 in the matter of appointment of Office Assistants, the petitioner had put up Office Notes based on which Rajendran, Anandan and Thangavelu who were working as contingent staff, were appointed by the then Sub-Collector, Pollachi, and hence, disciplinary action was instituted against the petitioner under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules by way of the impugned orders which are perfectly in accordance with law and as such, they do not warrant any sort of interference.

6. Heard Mr. M. Muthupandian, learned counsel appearing for Mr. L.H. Lawrence, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

7. Mr. Muthupandian, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the petitioner, as an Assistant, has no authority to appoint Office Assistants, who were in fact appointed by an order of the then Sub-Collector, the impugned orders alleging that the petitioner had appointed three Office Assistants by preparing Office Notes, suppressing the contents of G.O. Ms. No.666 are bad in law, particularly when the appointing authority, namely, the then Sub-Collector was not proceeded against leading to discrimination in disciplinary proceedings and as such, the impugned orders suffer from infirmity on the ground of discriminative treatment.

8. The second important point of attack made by the counsel for the petitioner is that since the impugned Charge Memos have been issued in the year 2004 for the allegations which pertain to 1995, i.e. after a span of nine long years, the impugned orders have to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay which has prevented the petitioner to attend the enquiry effectively. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the two impugned orders do not have legs to stand as they have been framed for the same allegation.

9. On the contrary, Mr. Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondents, while rebutting the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not the appointi