The main legal point established is that unjustified delay in finalizing disciplinary proceedings, causing prejudice to the accused, warrants interference and may amount to punishment.

1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the enquiry report, dated 14.01.1999, submitted by the third respondent, the consequential proceedings, dated 20.05.2003 and the Letter dated 22.03.2005, issued by the first respondent and quash the same. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay regular pension and other attendant benefits to him.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was working as a Block Development Officer and posted at Panchayat Union Office, Lalgudi, Trichy District and about to retire on 30.09.1993, the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent herein, issued a charge memo, dated 27.09.1993, alleging that the petitioner has failed to take care of the custody of important cash book and failed to produce the books of accounts to the higher officers, inspite of repeated requests for the review meeting and that he has not maintained devotion to duties and thereby, violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules.

3. Pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, the Government, in G.O.(2D)No.157, Rural Development Department, dated 30.09.1993, did not permit the petitioner to retire from service till the passing of final orders on the disciplinary proceedings, with effect from 010. 1993 and that the salary of the petitioner was reduced to provisional pension. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the writ petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dated 30.08.1996, holding that charges 1 and 2 as not proved and that the enquuiry officer has also offered his opinion to re-consider charge No.3.

.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent neither accepted the findings of the enquiry officer nor rejected the same. On the other hand, a fresh enquiry was conducted inspite of objections from the writ petitioner. The second enquiry report dated 14.01.1999 was submitted contrary to the earlier report holding that all the charges as proved. The first respondent, after issuing a second show-cause notice, dated 20.05.2003, called upon the petitioner to submit his further representation on the findings. Thereafter, the first respondent proposed to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months, as penalty. In the meanwhile, the Government issued orders in G.O.(D)148, dated 22.03.2005, revoking the order of suspension and permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.09.1993, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the Government, vide proceedings dated 22.03.2005 have arrived at a provisional conclusion to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/- per month, for a period of six months and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for the proposed punishment. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.06.2005, denying all the charges framed against him.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the District Collector, Karur, vide proceedings dated 28.05.2004, informed the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent herein, stating that the petitioner was not responsible for the irregularities and that some other person, who was in service, at the relevant point of time alone was responsible for non-production of the records for verification.

6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the basis of the said communication, the respondents ought to have withdrawn the charge memo, the enquiry report and dropped further action on the disciplinary proceedings. Since no action was taken at their end, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.07.2006, requesting the respondents to withdraw the proposed communication. As disciplinary proceedings were pending for a long number of years, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this