In W.P.No.11316 of 2007, the petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 28.02.2007 on the ground that the charge memo itself is under challenge in W.P.No.10570 of 2007 and the matter is stayed by this court.

.2. The petitioner was working as a Khadi Assistant Grade I in the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board. During the year 1991, he was deputed to work as Village industries Co-operative Supervisor for the period from 05. 1991 to 010. 1991. At that time, there was a proposal to form a Society by name Adyar Electronics and Electrical Wiring, Service, Painting and Stationary Producers Co-operative Society. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Vellore on 010. 1991. It was found that during the period in which the petitioner was working, there were some irregularities and misappropriation in the Society and the matter was investigated by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Chennai and when the said case is pending before the Court, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 33. 2007. Before the petitioner could retire, he was placed under suspension with a view to prevent him from getting superannuated. The order, which was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Board, is under challenge in W.P.No.11316 of 2007.

3. In W.P.No. 10570 of 2007, it is the charge memo dated 13.02.2007, which is under challenge by the petitioner. The charges were serious and relate to misappropriation of several lakhs of rupees in the Society. The said charge memo was challenged solely on the ground that there was inordinate delay. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 23. 2007, granted an interim injunction by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 [M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India and others]. It is in the strength of the said interim order, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of suspension.

4. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Packiaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records.

5. The main argument of the petitioner is based upon the judgment of the Supreme court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 [P.V.Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board]. In the said judgment, it was held that conducting of enquiry with a considerable amount of delay will be prejudicial to Government servant and keeping the Government servant under protracted proceedings will create mental agony. But the facts of that case will clearly show that a charge memo was issued on 06. 2000 relating to an alleged irregularity in the sale deed dated 19. 1990 and that was nearly ten years before that incident. This was not satisfactorily explained by the Housing Board and it is in the factual background, the Supreme Court chose to interfere with the charge memo.

.6. The learned counsel also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 476 [Parameswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others] and 2006 (2) CTC 635 [M.Elangovan v. The Trichy District Central CO-op. Bank Ltd., Thiruchirapalli and another]. Further, reliance was also placed on the latter judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 (cited supra), which was referred to by this Court at the time of granting interim order. That itself has been distinguished by subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. But in the present case, it may be seen that the irregularities took place at the time when the petitioner was deputed to form a Co-operative Society and the said irregularities came to light much later and also, there was a vigilance probe into the said matter. In fact, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider Bijlanis case (cited supra) subsequently.

.7. In the decision reported in 1995 (3) SCC 134 [Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizabad v. Sachindra Nath Pandey and others], the Supreme Court held that the delay in framing charge cannot be a ground to interf