1. Challenging the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the 1st respondent and seeking to quash the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/TNPSC.

3. Facts of the case as put forth by the petitioner in his affidavit would run thus :

(i)The petitioner retired from service as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (shortly referred as 'PWD'), (W.R.O.) on 30.11.2006 pursuant to the order of the Government in G.O.(D) No.165 Public Works (E2) Department, dated 15.04.2008.

(ii)Originally, the petitioner joined the service of Public Works Department on 30.12.1972 as Assistant Engineer and served in various Divisions in Buildings Section from 1972 to 1994. During the said period, there were no complaints from his superiors and his service was uniformly good. Considering his unblemished record of service and based on the confidential reports, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, in and by G.O.Ms.No.159, Public Works Department, dated 18.02.1994 and he discharged his duties in the said post from February 1994 to February 2004 both in Buildings and Irrigation Sub-Divisions as a remarkable Sub Divisional Officer. Based on his sincere service in the Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu promoted him to the post of Executive Engineer vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 01.01.2004 and the petitioner joined as Executive Engineer, Tank Modernisation Division, Tindivanam on 20.02.2004.

(iii)Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a Charge Memo No.C-II(2)/9276/2002-13, dated 17.02.2004 with reference to the incident which took place on 30.03.1994, when the petitioner was transferred on promotion from Buildings Section, PWD, Thiruvannamalai. The gravamen of the charge is that after his transfer on promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner failed to hand over the section charges to his successor in complete shape resulting in misappropriation of the Government properties worth Rs.1,89,940/-. After receipt of the Charge Memo on 20.02.2004, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.03.2004, whereunder, he denied all the charges and submitted inter alia that he handed over the charges to the relieving officer on 30.03.1994.

(iv)The petitioner would submit that the Charge Memo was issued after a lapse of 10 years and there is inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and that the documents relied upon for sustaining the charges as mentioned in the list of documents as Annexure-III in the charge memo are not furnished. The 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 27.04.2004, appointed Er.S.Mahalingam, Superintending Engineer, PWD, WRO, Projects Circle, Vellore as the Inquiry Officer. He held an enquiry on 21.09.2004 and 22.09.2004, which was conducted in a slipshod manner. The Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of presenting-cum-prosecuting officer and cross-examined the petitioner. The petitioner specifically pointed out to the Enquiry Officer that he could not prove the actual handing over of charges by producing the documentary evidence, after the expiry of 10 years. Despite the specific request to the Enquiry Officer to furnish the documents and permit the petitioner to cross-examine the relieving officer Mr.Mathivanan, it was not acceded by him.

(v)The list of witnesses given in the Charge Memo are 6 Officers. Mr.Mathivanan, Asst. Engineer, Mr.Parasuraman, Executive Engineer (Retd.) and Mr.J.Devaraj, Asst. Executive Engineer (Retd.) were called for enquiry and they deposed. Other witnesses did not turn up. Even the two officers, Mr.Parasuraman and Mr.J.Devaraj stated that they could not remember anything at the distant point of time, which is clearly stated in the report of the Enquiry Officer. The