The power to frame charges and proceed with the inquiry vests with the Government as long as the petitioner is a Government servant.

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 Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

3. There is a fallacy in the said argument. Rule 16 is an enabling provision by which, for a Government servant whose services are lent to foreign service under the rule, the borrowing authority themselves are also empowered to initiate disciplinary action. By the aforesaid rules framed under Article 309, the Government does not denude itself of (its power of) taking disciplinary action against (its) (sic) own Government servants. Even otherwise, if the rules are read in a proper context, ultimately if any capital punishment has to be imposed on the petitioner, the entire file will have to go before the first and second respondents. Therefore, the argument based upon Rule 16 is misconceived.

4. So long as the petitioner is a Government servant and the power to impose final punishment vests on the Government, it also enables the power to frame charges and proceed with the enquiry. Therefore, the argument that the second respondent has no power is hereby rejected.

5. The second submission of the learned counsel is that ultimately the appointing authority is the first respondent and therefore, the second respondent cannot frame charge memo under Rule 17(b) also cannot be entertained because the Constitutional right under Article 311(2) by which the appointing authority alone is empowered to remove the Government servant does not come at the stage of framing the charge memo. It comes into operation only at the time of imposition of penalty.

6. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are no materials, as the 3rd respondent had not made any complaint and therefore there is no basis to frame the charge memo also falls to ground. The impugned charge memo, has a reference to the complaint made to the Chief Ministers Special Cell and we do not know the other materials under which the said charge memo has been framed. At this stage, the Court cannot embark upon the materials behind the charge memo. It is for the petitioner to make a complaint or explanation against the charge memo and face the enquiry in order to establish his innocence. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.