Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the accused and may render the charges baseless.

1. In all these cases, the petitioners, who have served as Special Thasildars, Adi Dravidar Welfare in Kankeyam, Erode District and subsequently, transferred to various other places have been served with the impugned Charge Memo, calling upon the petitioners to submit explanations.

2. A reference to the impugned Charge Memo shows that in respect of acquisition of 0.99.5 hectares land in Re-Survey No.82/C1 for the construction of housing plots for Adi Dravidar Community people, the Special Tahsildar by his order dated 24.12.1992 has fixed the price of the lands per acre at Rs.8,400, since the owners have requested for enhanced amount of compensation, a reference was made by the Special Tahsildar, Kankeyam to the Sub-Court, Dharapuram under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in O.P. No. 4 of 1993 an enhanced amount of Rs.15,000 per acre was ordered. As per the order dated 04.03.1994, it is also stated in the impugned Charge Memo that even as against the said enhanced compensation, some of the owners have approached this Court by filing A.S. No. 932 of 1995 and the matter is pending, in which, the notice in C.M.P. No. 7837 of 1997 was received 26.9.1995.

3. It is also stated in the impugned Charge Memo that in the said First Appeal, this Court in the final judgment dated 11.12.2003 has increased the compensation to Rs.30,000 per acre. The charge against the petitioners is, that the petitioner in W.P. No. 30703 of 2006 during his period as Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare between 4.10.2002 to 17.8.2003, the petitioner in W.P. No. 30704 of 2006 during his period as Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare between 4.2.2002 to 9.4.2002, the petitioner in W.P. No. 30705 of 2006 during his period as Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare between 5.6.1997 to 5.3.1998, the petitioner in W.P. No. 30706 of 2006 during his period as Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare between 26.7.2001 to 30.11.2001 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 30707 of 2006 during his period as Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare between 10.4.2002 to 14.9.2002 have not taken proper steps in filing counter affidavit and not closely following the case by meeting the Government Advocate, in order to file a counter affidavit which resulted in a loss of Rs.1,25,101 to the Government in respect of the payment of compensation.

4. The second charge in all these cases is that in respect of the land situated in Thalavaipuram Village in Survey No.329 to the extent of 2.72.0 Hectare, in spite of the fact that based on the Erode District Committee’s decision an amount of Rs.12,09,600

was paid to the owners like Mr. A.N. Eswaramoorthy and 3 others and documents got registered by the Government in document No.3531 dated 11.10.1995 and on the same date the amount having been paid to the owners and having taken possession, the said owner s have approached the Civil Court by filing O.S. No. 455 of 1996 in the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and obtained an order on 9.9.1996 claiming common pathway in the said land in which the Government side remained ex parte and therefore, the charge against the petitioners is that the petitioners have not taken steps. The third and final charge in all these cases is that in respect of Kolathupalayam Village, in order to give free house sites to the most backward class washermen relating to Re-Survey No.146/1 in respect of 0.92.0 Hectare of land, the compensation was fixed at Rs.18,307 per acre by the order of the Special Tahsildar in respect of which the amount was enhanced to Rs.80,000 per acre by the order dated 9.8.1995 in the case filed in O.P. No. 07 of 1994, apart from 30% as soletium and interest of 12% from the date of the order in the Sub-Court, Dharapuram. The certified copy of the said order of the Sub-Court has been obtained for the purpose of Appeal on 30.3.2000, the proposals were sent to the Director of Backward and Schedule Caste Department, which was returned and thereafter, an Appeal was filed in the