The petitioner was recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was serving as District Educational Officer by direct recruitment. His services were lent to the third respondent, which is a society registered under the Societies Act and is fully funded by the Central Government. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner and on the basis of that, a charge memo dated 29.12.2003 was framed by the second respondent under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Even though the said order is dated 29.12.2003, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition only in the year 2006. There is no whisper or any reason shown in the affidavit for the long delay in coming to this Court. The writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches alone.

2. Even otherwise, Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that second respondent has no power to frame the charge memo. It is the 3rd respondent under whom the petitioner is working on foreign service terms alone is the competent authority. For that purpose, the learned counsel relies upon Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service