The main legal point established is that unexplained delays in initiating disciplinary proceedings are prejudicial to the government servant and should be avoided. The court emphasized the importance of timely action and proper application of mind in disciplinary matters.

1. The writ petition is directed against the orders of the respondent dated 26.8.2008, by which charges were leveled against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, an order of suspension was passed and the petitioner was retained in service, and for a consequential direction to regularise the period of suspension of the petitioner between 20.9.1999 to 15.7.2003 and 29.8.2008 to 31.8.2008 as duty period.

2.1. The writ petitioner, working as a Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai, was stated to have been implicated in a corruption case by one M.Jayabalan, then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Kancheepuram on 20.9.1999 due to previous enmity. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 20.9.1999 by the then Special Commissioner based on a report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

2.2. In the year 2002, the petitioner was reinstated into service by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and he has joined duty in the department as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Audit), Sivagangai on 15.7.2003 and was continuously working.

2.3. The corruption case on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur was disposed on 15.7.2008 and the petitioner was acquitted. He has completed the age of 58 years and his date of superannuation fell due on 31.8.2008 and the impugned charge memo was framed on 26.8.2008 under Rule 17(b) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges were levelled against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on the same day by order dated 26.8.2008, which was served on him on 29.8.2008, the last working day of his service. The impugned order of retention was passed on 26.8.2008 and served on him on 31.8.2008, which happens to be a Sunday.

2.4. All the said orders are challenged on the grounds that under similar facts and circumstances when the Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner, the charges are made vaguely as if the criminal case is still pending before the Magistrate Court; that even the case number in respect of the criminal case is incorrect; that without knowing the full particulars and details the impugned orders have been passed; and that while the petitioner's designation is Commercial Tax Officer, he has been falsely stated as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, which shows the non application of mind.

2.5. It is further stated that for nearly ten years when the criminal case was pending there was no bar for taking disciplinary action and no such action was taken and the impugned charge memo was issued after the criminal case has ended in acquittal and there is a delay of nearly ten years, which is unexplained. It is stated that as per the government order, any order of suspension on the eve of retirement is invalid in law and therefore, the orders are opposed to the principles of natural justice.

3.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that in the disciplinary case, the petitioner and one R.Anandhan, Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruttani were trapped and arrested on 20.9.1999 for demand and acceptance of bribe of ` 2500/- from one K.P.Annadurai for processing the application dated 28.7.1999 for issuance of TNGST registration certificate. On arrest, both the officers were placed under suspension, against which the petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and in obedience to the order of the Tribunal, the suspension order was revoked and he was posted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Audit) in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Sivagangai on 15.7.2003.

3.2. It is stated that since the investigation revealed that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sanction was accorded to prosecute the officials before the competent court and it was after getting sanctio