The main legal point established is that notices issued with premeditation to impose enhanced punishment are challengeable, and suo moto proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable time as per Rule 36 of the TNCS [D&A] Rules.

1. By mutual consent of both sides, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are challenging one and the same impugned notice dated 13.10.2008 as both of them are co-delinquents and they have come forward with the above petitions seeking for the relief of quashing the said impugned notices dated 13.10.2008 in letter Nos.13177/V9A/03-13 and 13177/V9A/03-14.

3. The case of the petitioners is that both the petitioners are working as Foresters in Harur range, Dharmapuri District. While they were working as Forest Watchers earlier, on certain alleged irregularities, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioners by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings on 11.07.1995 and the Tribunal conducted a detailed enquiry in TDP case No.17/2000 and held that charges 1 and 4 are proved. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioners submitted their explanations and a final order in the Disciplinary Proceedings was passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 17.12.2002 imposing a punishment of "CENSURE".

4. After a lapse of about 6 years, now the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice in his proceedings dated 13.10.2008 stating that the punishment already imposed in proceedings dated 17.12.2002 is not sufficient and further stated that it is proposed to impose the punishment of reversion of 4 years and 5 years respectively. Being aggrieved against the said impugned notice dated 13.10.2008, the petitioners have come forward with the above writ petitions seeking for the above said relief.

5. Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit the following two-fold contentions, viz., firstly, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same proposed imposition of punishment of reversion of 4 years and 5 years respectively is a pre-meditated one and secondly, the Disciplinary Proceedings were completed by imposing a punishment of censure as early as on 17.12.2002 in respect of the alleged incidents said to have taken place in the year 1988-1989 and whereas the impugned show cause notice is now issued only on 13.10.2008 after a lapse of six years and as such, the suo-moto proceedings are not initiated within the reasonable time.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the following decisions:-

[1] 2007 [1] CTC 844 [SIEMENS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS];

[2] [2009] 1 MLJ 1049 [N.BOSE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY IT SECRETARY TO GOVT., EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER]; and

[3] [2010] 1 MLJ 869 [K.JAYAKUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-10 AND OTHERS].

7. Mr.S.N..Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader [Forests] would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in issuing the impugned show cause notice. It is contended that it is open to the petitioners to raise their objections by giving suitable reply by participating in the proceedings. It is further submitted that the first respondent having felt that the punishment already imposed was not a sufficient one and proportionate to the charges framed against the petitioners, decided to issue the present impugned show cause notice dated 13.10.2008. It is further contended that there is nothing wrong in informing the petitioners about the proposed punishment and on that ground itself, it cannot be contended that the first respondent is having premeditated action in his mind while issuing the impugned show cause notice. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader [Forests] that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed

8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned notice dated 13.10.2008.

9. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioners have been proceeded by conducting the Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of the