The main legal point established is that inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings without valid reasons prejudices the charged officer and defeats justice, warranting the quashing of charges.

1.The Petitioner was working as an Horticulture Officer at Kumbakonam and he was issued with a charge memo dated 5. 2004, alleging (1) that on 15. 1987, the watchman, who was on duty on that date, on seeing two unknown persons plucking mangoes in the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Orchard, measuring to an extent of 1303 Acres, obstructed the said two persons, who after attacking the watchman with aruval, cycle chain, ran away and the watchman recovered the said deadly weapons and mangoes and handed over the same to the Petitioner on 15.05.1987, requesting him to take action, but the Petitioner failed to take action, thereby committed the misconduct of dereliction of duty and (2) that the Petitioner did not give any complaint to the police with an intention to help the said two persons, who attacked the watchman with deadly weapons and (3) that the Petitioner acted arbitrarily and failed to collect the tender amounts of Rs.3,31,000/- and Rs.2,01,321/-within the stipulated time from two tenderers by name (1) G. Murugan and (2) S. Natarajan respectively, who purchased mangoes and (4) that the Petitioner also approved another tenderer by name V. Ravi for a sum of Rs.87,000/- thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,34,000/-/. The Respondents did not complete the enquiry in respect of the said charges in time and hence, the Petitioner filed WP.No.20261/2004, which was disposed of by this court by order dated 17. 2004, directing the 1st Respondent therein to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in accordance with law, on or before 30.9.2004 and even after the said order dated 17. 2004, the 1st Respondent has not passed final orders in the disciplinary proceedings till date. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the said charge memo dated 5. 2004.

2.The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was working as the Horticulture Officer in Vallathirakottai during the period from 1985 to 1988 and that he was also in charge of the said Mahatma Gandhi Rural Orchard at Vallathirakottai, measuring an extent of 1303 Acres and that in so far as the said orchard is concerned, he was not direct in charge of the same, however, he directed his subordinates to initiate action for the said theft and that with regard to the other charge of not recovering the bid amount from the two other persons, the same were recovered subsequently, however, the Petitioner during his tenure at the relevant point of time in the said Orchard, has made sincere efforts to recover the said amount and that in any event, the charges issued after lapse of 18 years are untenable in law and that in the earlier Writ Petition as stated above, the Respondents were directed to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings on or before 30.9.2004, which was also not complied with and prayed this court to quash the impugned charge memo.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision, to support his above said contentions, rendered in the case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005-4-CTC-403), wherein in paragraphs 10 and 15, it was held as under:-

"10. The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the Writ Petition.

.....

15. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retrial benefits in accordance with law. The retrial benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs."

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents