Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and lack of jurisdiction in issuing charge memos can prejudice the employee and go against the public interest.

1. In respect of the writ petition, in W.P.No.3189 of 2006, it has been stated that the petitioner had joined in service, as a Sub Inspector of Police, on 15.3.1972, by direct recruitment. He had been promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 13.11.1998. He has been maintaining a good record of service for the past 34 years. The petitioner has received nearly 150 rewards and 21 meritorious service entries. He had been awarded the Chief Minister's medal for his outstanding service in the Police

Department. He was due to retire from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.1.2006. However, he was placed under suspension by the first respondent, on 3.11.2005, without assigning any reason.

2. It has been further stated that, on 27.1.2006, he was served with the impugned charge memo, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, containing two counts of charges relating to the investigation of two criminal cases, registered in Crime No.832 of 1993, in Manachanallur police station and in Crime No.1953 of 1993, in Fort police station. Both the cases had resulted in the conviction of the accused persons, with the punishment of life sentence imposed on them. Subsequently, the accused person, in crime No.1953 of 1993, had preferred a Criminal Appeal before this Court, in C.A.No.797 of 1995, in S.C.No.192 of 1994. When the criminal appeal had been taken up for final hearing, the petitioner was called to attend the court on the mistaken assumption that he was the investigating officer in the said case. In the said criminal appeal, this Court had acquitted the accused person. In such circumstances, a charge memo had been framed against the petitioner, on 23.1.2006, after an unexplained delay of 13 years, stating that the accused persons in the criminal appeal had been acquitted by this Court, due to the gross neglect of duty by the petitioner in having failed to evince the minimum essential interest in initiating proper investigation relating to the crime confessed by the accused Alexander, in Crime No.832 of 1993, in Manachanallur Police station and for his gross neglect of duty in having failed to take sufficient care to connect the material object, the gold chain, by means of clinching evidence, to anyone of the accused, in Crime No.1953 of 1993, in Fort police station.

3. The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not the investigating officer, in respect of Crime No.1953 of 1993, in Fort police station, Trichy city. The investigation done by the petitioner, in Crime No.832 of 1993, had been done well and the accused had been awarded the maximum punishment of life sentence. Further, the charge memo had been issued nearly 13 years, after the incident had taken place.

4. It had also been stated that, as per Rule 12(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Head of the Department concerned had been delegated with the powers to institute the disciplinary proceedings relating to the state service officers. Thereafter, the matter is to be remitted to the Government for passing of final orders. However, in the present case, the third respondent, who is not the Head of the Department, had framed the charge memo, without jurisdiction and in violation of the said Rules.

5. It had also been stated that the charges framed against the petitioner could not be treated as an act of misconduct warranting action, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Further, the suspension of the petitioner from service, based on the charge memo issued to him, on the verge of his retirement from service, for the alleged occurrence, which is said to have taken place, in the year 1993, is arbitrary, illegal and void.

6. In respect of the writ petition, in W.P.No.3188 of 2006, it has been stated that the petitioner had been issued with the charge memo,