The seriousness of the charge and absence of delay or vagueness in the charge memo justified the dismissal of the writ petition.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the charge memo dated 07.08.2009 issued to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is working as a Carpentry Instructor and posted in the Central Prison, Vellore. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that; the District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem preferred a complaint before the Crime Branch against Tmt.Palaniammal, Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thiru.Senthamizh @ Ravi, Secondary Grade Teacher and Thiru.Gnanasekaran, Secondary Grade Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said complaint, there is no allegation made against him. During January 2002, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem against eight accused and the petitioner was arrayed as the 6th accused, which according to the petitioner is based on a statement given by the second accused. The case has been taken on file as C.C.No.335/2003 and the case is still pending.

3. According to the petitioner, he has been regularly appearing before the Judicial Magistrate Court and the trial is yet to begin. While, so the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 06.04.2005, on the ground that he is involved in a criminal offence, which is under trial. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension before this Court by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.25931 of 2009 and this Court had granted interim stay, and based on such order, the petitioner has been reinstated. The first respondent by proceedings dated 07.08.2009, framed a charge against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that he was running a Teacher Training Institute and received money from the public and failed to return the money and thereby cheated the public. It is the case of the petitioner that in the annexure to the charge memo, there is no list of documents or any specific complaint or names of persons, who have made the complaint and the Assistant working in the Central Prison alone is cited as the prosecution witness in the charge memo. This charge memo dated 07.08.2009 is challenged in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the charge memo framed against the petitioner is vague and does not disclose any material particulars such as date of occurrence and the persons, who preferred complaint, evidence which is to be considered in the enquiry etc., and the respondents cannot proceed, based on a such vague charge. It is further contended that the allegation in the criminal case, which is pending against the petitioner is identical to that of the departmental proceedings and therefore, the departmental proceedings have to be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal trail. Further, it is contended that the delay in issuing the charge memo is itself a ground for quashing the charge since, the allegation is of the year 1987 and departmental proceedings were instituted in 1991 and no enquiry was conducted till 1995 and on the ground of the delay alone, the charge is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (6) SCC 636. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate by relying upon the counter affidavit would submit that the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem City by letter dated 28.03.2005 has stated that petitioner and his family members were involved in a criminal case relating to manipulation, forging and issuance of bogus certificate of Diploma in Teacher Education with a dishonest intention of cheating the ge