The court emphasized that charge memos should not be issued while a writ petition challenging the transfer order is pending with an interim stay.

In the first writ petition being W.P. No.1694 of 2005, the petitioner seeks for quashing the order dated 30.12.2004 wherein and by which he was transferred from Cuddalore Division to Villupuram Division along with his post and he was also relieved from service. The writ petition was admitted on 24.01.2005. But, however, no ex parte interim order was granted. Subsequently, on 28. 2005, an interim stay was granted in W.P. M.P. No. 1881 of 2005. But the application in W.P.M.P. No.1882 of 2005 was dismissed as not pressed. But, however, the petitioner had neither joined duty at the post in Villupuram nor he was allowed to join duty at Cuddalore where he was working earlier.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 37092 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the second respondent Joint Director of Agriculture to post him at Cuddalore in the office of the third respondent. That writ petition was merely directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition, viz., W.P. No.1694 of 2005 and no interim orders were granted in M.P. No. 1 of 2006.

3. In the third writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 31830 of 2007, a charge memo dated 010. 2007 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [for short, Rules]. When the matter came up on 110. 2007, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice and the matter was posted subsequently. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner made a mention that the petitioner is retiring on 310. 2007 and, therefore, all the matters should be taken up together, all the three writ petitions were listed on 210. 2007.

4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these petitions and Mr. M.Dhandapani, Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records.

.5. It is not known as to why the respondents did not obey the order of interim stay granted on 28. 2005 in W.P. M.P. No. 1881 of 2005 in W.P. No.1694 of 2005 till date. No petition was filed either to vacate the interim order or to vary the order and no explanation is forthcoming from the respondents. Even till date, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit even though the matter was admitted as early as 24.01.2005. This forced the petitioner to file the second writ petition, viz. W.P. No.37092 of 2006, which is yet to be admitted. Further, without vacating the interim order and without filing any counter in the original writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 1694 of 2005, the respondents have framed the charge memo dated 010. 2007 under Rule 17(b) of the Rules. The first allegation in the Annexure I was that the petitioner had not obeyed the order of transfer and he had been on leave without proper leave application thereby disobeyed the order of the superiors. The second charge is the continuation of the first charge, viz., the petitioner, by absenting himself, had violated the Conduct Rules. The third and fourth charges were that he had filed a writ petition challenging the transfer order and because of that fact, he has not applied for leave and this would amount to continued disobedience and inspite of the charge memo levelled against him, he has been remaining absent on his own.

6. When a writ petition is pending against the shifting of the petitioner from Headquarters to Villupuram and an interim stay has also been in subsistence, it is rather surprising as to how the respondents can frame a charge sheet in respect of the same allegations. It is also significant that they have not filed any reply to the allegations made in the affidavit. This action of the respondents is contemacious and highly reprehensible and that the respondents instead of framing a charge sheet under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, could have brought to the notice of this Court stating that the action of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Government servant and that he ou