Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can lead to the quashing of the enquiry, causing serious prejudice to the employee.

1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Charge Memo in Na.Ka.No.7608/83/E issued on 10.05.1985.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

(i) Petitioner while working as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies under the control of the 2nd Respondent i.e., Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Salem in 1983, is alleged to have committed certain lapses in the discharge of his duties. Disciplinary action was initiated against the Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent i.e., the Deputy Registrar / Dairying, Salem in RC 7608/83 C Dt: 10.05.1985 and a charge memo was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules now Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Charge Memo was served upon the Petitioner on 20.12.1985 and the Petitioner had acknowledged the same on 212. 1985. Since no explanation was forthcoming from the Petitioner, reminders were sent to the Petitioner in 1987 calling upon him to submit his explanation.

2. Thereafter no action was taken in respect of Charge Memo. In 2005, 1st Respondent in his proceedings Rc.1754/05 DA dated 211. 2005 has appointed 3rd Respondent as Enquiry Officer. 3rd Respondent issued notice to the Petitioner to appear for disciplinary proceedings. On that stage Petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the Charge Memo on the ground of delay.

3. Opposing the petition Respondents have filed counter contending that the Petitioner has been delaying the proceedings and there was no unexplained delay as alleged by the Petitioner.

4. Placing reliance upon 2005 (4) CTC 403 P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, contended that the inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that there has been unexplained and inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.

5. On behalf of the Respondents learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, submitted that the Petitioner was served with Charge Memo even in 1985 and thereafter the Petitioner was repeatedly taking adjournments. It was further submitted that the Petitioner having requested for copy of Charge Memo and sought for adjournments, it is not open for the Petitioner to challenge the disciplinary proceedings. Alleged lapses are said to have occurred during 1982. In the impugned Charge Memo Na.Ka.No.7608/83/E dated 10.05.1985, charges were framed against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules now Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The gist of charges are as follows:

"Without approval of Deputy Registrar, petitioner who was then working as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies had allegedly written accounts of Edayapatti Society and amount was spent for the same;

"Petitioner indulged in money transaction which is not befitting of a Government servant;

"The Petitioner allegedly operated beyond his administrative area and taken steps for obtaining loan for other villages i.e., Tirumalaipatti;

"Petitioner had made false entries.

6. As pointed out earlier, Charge Memo was served upon the Petitioner on 20.12.1985 and the Petitioner had acknowledged its receipt on 212. 1985. Since Petitioner had not submitted his explanation few reminders were sent to the Petitioner during 1985-1987 (Letter No.2094/85A dt:25.04.1986;Rc.2094/85 A dt:15.09.1987 and Rc.10342/87 A1 dt:210. 1987) calling upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation for the charges levelled against him. Thereafter there was no further proceedings in the disciplinary action. As pointed out earlier, averments in the counter affidavit refer to certain reminders, absolutely there was no further progress after 1987.

7. According to the Respondents the Petitioner had been repeatedly taking adjou