The main legal point established is that delay in conducting an enquiry must demonstrate prejudice to the employee to be considered valid, and objections cannot be raised after participating in the enquiry without demur.

Heard the arguments of Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.

D. Sukumar, counsel for the petitioner and R. Girirajan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board and perused the records.

2. The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in the respondent Housing Board. In the present writ petition, he is challenging the order dated 35. 2007 wherein an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against him. Pursuant to the decision of the respondent Board vide resolution dated 24. 2007, it was resolved to conduct denova enquiry against the petitioner and 12 others and the petitioner was charge sheeted by a charge memo dated 110. 1999 in terms of Regulation 37(b) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Service Regulations 1969. The charge against the petitioner was very serious that inasmuch as during the period from 05. 1989 to 08. 1989, when he was working as Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer at the Madurai Sub-Division, he had failed to supervise and extract work from the allotted staff and also committed irregularities which are listed out in Annexure I to the charge memo. It was stated that because of his lack of supervision during the short tenure of the petitioner, the Board had suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 3,94,219/-, which was also listed in Annexure IV to the charge memo.

3. One V. Shanmughanathan, who was the Financial Adviser of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Since the said Financial Adviser went on transfer, one R. Ramachandran, Chief Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by an order dated 03.01.2002. As he had also gone on leave, another Financial Adviser, by name, P. Palanivel was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 04. 2002. An enquiry was conducted on 28. 2002 by the said Palanivel, who had recorded the statement of the petitioner. Thereafter, in the place of Palanivel, one K. Ganesan, Financial Adviser, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and he had completed the enquiry against the petitioner on 111. 2004.

4. In that enquiry held on 011. 2002, the said Enquiry Officer had also put questions to the petitioner. He found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and recorded a finding to that effect. Instead of taking further action on that report, the respondent, by the impugned order dated 35. 2007, once again, ordered for a fresh enquiry to be conducted by another Financial Adviser, by name, N. Rajendran. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Notice was ordered and interim order was granted staying further proceedings.

5. Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in conducting the enquiry. The charges, which were originally initiated against the petitioner relate to the year 1989 and the petitioner is now 65 years old and having reached the age of superannuation during October 1999, the further enquiry proceedings should be quashed. He also submitted that the charges were vague and on that ground, the writ petition is liable to be quashed.

6. With reference to the delay, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (4) C.T.C. 403 [P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board]. In that judgment, it was held that conducting of enquiry with considerable amount of delay will be prejudicial to an employee and keeping an employee on a protracted proceedings will create mental agony. But in the present case, the charge sheet was given as early as on 110. 1999 and the petitioner had given reply on 211. 1999 and 23. 2000. At that point of time, the petitioner did not raise any ground of prejudice. But, on the contrary, on 28. 2001, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Subsequently, when the third Enquiry Officer came to be appointed, he also participated in the enquiry