The court emphasized the lack of useful purpose in continuing the charge memo after the petitioner's retirement and the likelihood of bias in initiating the disciplinary proceeding by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the charge memo dated 21.12.2005, issued against the petitioner.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(a)The petitioner was the Executive Director (Technical) of the first respondent Company, a Government of India Undertaking, which produces fertilizers. The petitioner is functioning with the assistance of various department heads viz., Deputy General Manager (Production Front End); Deputy General Manager (Production Back End); Joint General Manager (Maintenance); Deputy General Manager (Technical Services) and Deputy General Manager (Materials).

(b)The job responsibilities of each of the persons in different levels are also defined. The Deputy General Manager (Production Front End) has the responsibility of operation of the plant and machinery to achieve the desired level of production as well as to maintain quality of products. The Deputy General Manager (Production) interacts with his counter part like the Deputy General Manager (Technical services) and Deputy General Manager (Maintenance) for such purpose. The responsibility of the Executive Director (Technical) is also well defined.

(c)The impugned charge memo was issued against the petitioner alleging that on 29.12.2004, 5.1.2005 and 10.1.2005 there had been instances of "shut down" of the factory for which one Suresh John, Deputy Manager (Corporate Planning) submitted his report to the Chairman and Managing Director on 7.3.2005, based on which the petitioner has to offer his comments on the shut down for the said three occasions. Petitioner submitted his comments and stated that the first shut down on 29.12.2004 was not due to any human error; the second shut down on 5.1.2005 was at the instance of the officials of the Pollution Control Board to avoid deterioration in the environment; and the third shut down happened on 10.1.2005 was due to human error and pointed out the persons who were responsible for the shut down.

(d)It was also pointed out that on 10.1.2005 the Chairman and Managing Director came to the site for inspection immediately after the shut down. Based on the said inspection action was initiated against the shift Engineer by name Thirumoorthy, for his lapse for the shut down on 5.1.2005 and no action was taken against any person for the third shut down on 10.1.2005.

(e)According to the petitioner on 7.3.2005 the Deputy Manager (Corporate Planning) viz., Suresh John while attempting to plug the leakage in one of the valves meddled with the said plant and to avoid further leakage there was a shut down. The same was recorded on 8.3.2005.

(f)The petitioner submitted a report to the Chairman and Managing Director on 10.3.2005. The President of the Madras Fertilizers Limited Officers Association wrote to the Chief Vigilance Officer about the shut down dated 7.3.2005. However, the Chairman and Managing Director had given a clean chit by order dated 11.3.2005 to the said Suresh John.

(g)In September, 2005 another Vigilance Officer took charge. On 15.9.2005 the New Chief Vigilance Officer requested the petitioner to send a report regarding the shut down dated 7.3.2005 and on the same day the Chairman-cum-Managing Director requested the petitioner to make a draft report and give the same by 25.9.2005, pursuant to which the petitioner made a report on 3.10.2005 and sent the same to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who was on leave on the said date.

(h)On 7.10.2005 the Chief Vigilance Officer visited the factory and asked about the report called for by him. Petitioner gave a copy of the report dated 3.10.2005 which was addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. On return from leave on 10.10.2005, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director questioned the petitioner as to how he sent the report directly to the Chief Vigilance Officer and threatened the petitioner. On 2.11.2005 the Chairman-cum-Managing Director wrote to the Chief Vigilance Officer stating that the