The writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 11. 1984 and promoted as Assistant on 110. 1990 and as Extension Officer on 14. 2006. His next cadre of promotion is Block Development Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that originally he was due for promotion as Extension Officer in May, 2001 on par with his junior one Mr.Jayakumar who is stated to have been further promoted as Block Development Officer on 26. 2008.

2. Thepromotional avenue of the petitioner is stated to have been curtailed because he was facing charges on 30.9.1997 for an incident which is said to have taken place in 1986. It is stated that while he was working as Junior Assistant in Panchayat Union at Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District from 18. 1986 to 11. 1987, in respect of the bill prepared by him for a sum of Rs.67,541/- for the purchase of pipe materials, he is said to have caused loss to the extent of Rs.5628.75 to the Panchayat funds. It was, for the said incident said to have taken place in 1986, a charge memo was issued on 30.9.1997.

2(a) It is the case of the petitioner that the stock was duly accounted by the technical staff even before the petitioner joined in the said station and therefore, the charge is not maintainable. It is stated that under similar circumstances, charges were framed against the predecessor of the petitioner and the charges were finally dropped in G.O.(2D) No.149 Rural Development (E3) Department, dated 212. 2004 on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer that the charges were not proved.

2(b) In the present case also, the petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of the charges made against him in the year 1997 and the enquiry officer found that all the three charges were not proved, however, the Government took a different stand from the report of the enquiry officer and ultimately, the Government issued orders in G.O.(D) No.640, Rural Development (E3) Department dated 17. 2004 which is impugned in this writ petition, along with the charge memo issued by the second respondent dated 30.9.1997, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect along with recovery of Rs.2814/- in five instalments.

2(c) It is stated that the revision filed by the petitioner before the first respondent on 30.9.2004 by quoting a similar case relating to the predecessor of the petitioner viz., Mr.A.Saravanan was dismissed by the first respondent, who confirmed the second respondent’s order in G.O.(D)No.238, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department dated 14. 2008 which is also challenged in this writ petition.

3. The impugned orders are challenged on various grounds that the same are arbitrary and illegal, that the disciplinary proceedings and the charge memo issued by the second respondent dated 30.9.1997 are not valid in law, that the charge memo was issued after a long delay of 11 years, that the consequential order issued by the second respondent by imposing stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect is illegal since in respect of Mr.Saravanan, the second respondent has taken a different stand, that while rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, the first respondent did not take note of the above said facts and that the petitioner was not involved in the incident inasmuch as the accounts had already been submitted much earlier to the petitioner joining in that particular station.

4. On the other hand, as it is seen in the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner while working as a Junior Assistant in the Panchayat, prepared a bill for Rs.67,541/- and it is his duty to point out that as per Panchayat Administration Part- II to make payment only after ascertaining the prevailing market rate and the petitioner failed to point out the relevant rule and due to his failure a loss of Rs.5,628.75 was incurred to the Panchayat funds.

4(a) It is also stated that the said stand was taken by the second respondent after t