Mere irregularity in the enquiry report is not sufficient for ordering de novo enquiry. The authority ordering de novo enquiry must be empowered with the power of setting aside the enquiry report.

In both the writ petitions, the petitioner and the respondents are one and the same, besides that the issue involved are identical, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in public works department in the year 1965, later, he was deputed to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation wherein he was absorbed as Assistant Engineer, in the year 1977, he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer and subsequently, in the year 1985, he was promoted as Executive Engineer. Two days prior to his retirement i.e., on 29.05.1998, the first respondent has issued a charge which is challenged in WP No. 13557 of 2001. The charges are:-

"Charge No.1: that he failed to exercise proper control over his subordinates and failed to extract work from them without any complaints from the public

Charge No.2: that he has failed to see that the bills claimed by the private parties attending to the work of TNCSC are passed smoothly without demanding any illegal gratification from the parties

Charge No.3: that he has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to his duties and responsibilities in discharging his duties

Charge No.4: that he is negligent in discharging his duties and responsibilities and thus brought disrepute to the corporation."

3. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.06.1998 denying the charges. Thereafter, the first respondent has appointed an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry and found that none of the charges levelled against him were proved. To that effect, the enquiry officer has filed his report to the first respondent on 06.08.1998. Thereafter, the respondents remained silent and on 06.07.2001, by proceedings dated 06.07.2001, the first respondent informed the petitioner that fresh enquiry would be conducted after observing all essential formalities and procedures, which is challenged in WP No. 13558 of 2001.

4. Mr. Chinnasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are flimsy, vague and not supported by any evidence; that the enquiry officer, after proper consideration of the same has found that the charges are not proved; that the proceedings dated 06.07.2001 of the first respondent for de-novo enquiry has been issued mechanically and no reason is assigned for the same; that there was a delay of three years from the date of filing of the report by the enquiry officer, which is not properly explained; that in any event, without invalidating the earlier enquiry directing to conduct fresh enquiry is unsustainable in law and prayed for allowing of the writ petitions.

5. Mr. Senthil Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent reiterated the contents of the counter and submitted that based on the report received from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption department dated 14.05.1998 and also the letter received from the Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 29.05.1998, charges memo was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.1998 and he was allowed to retire without prejudice to initiate appropriate departmental action; that based on the lapses pointed out by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, four charges were framed against the petitioner under Regulation 4 chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Employees Service Regulation 1989 by the first respondent; that the charge memo was served on the petitioner on 29.05.1998, an enquiry officer was appointed on 16.06.1998 who submitted his report on 05.08.1998 holding that all the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved and that the enquiry report was also served on the petitioner on 10.08.1998 and he was called upon to submit his further explanation; that the petitioner has accepted the enquiry findings and not offered any explanation; that based on the Government letter dated 10.02.2000, disc