The main legal point established in the judgment is that inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can vitiate the proceedings and render any subsequent punishment unjustified.

1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the orders, dated 24.02.2003 and 30.06.2009, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of her increment for one year without cumulative effect and also ordered recovery of the loss amount of Rs.30,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, starting from July 2009 and for a direction to the respondents to restore the seniority, pay, promotion, arrears and all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she has been serving as Horticultural Officer in the office of the second respondent. While she was working as Horticultural Officer, WGDP, Nanguneri, two charges were framed against her, on 24.01.2002, that she failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and conducted herself in a manner unbecoming of a member of the service, thereby violating Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and also made false entry in the Stock Register, as though she had received 30,000 pepper rooted cuttings, on 24.03.1996, and 30.03.1996, and also prepared records, showing that the same was distributed to 19 farmers at free of costs. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted her explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the case was referred to the third respondent, which was taken on file as T.D.P. Case No.1 of 2002, after a delay of six years.

3. A common enquiry was conducted against seven officers, including the petitioner herein. The Enquiry Officer, while holding that the charge No.1 was not proved, concluded that the charge No. II was proved against the petitioner. The first respondent, by the proceedings, dated 30.06.2009, imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.1,000/-per month for 30 months starting from the month of July 2009. In the above circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been laid.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though the charge related to the year 1996, nearly after lapse of six years, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and for such undue delay, there was no acceptable explanation given by the third respondent. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contention, makes reliance upon the following Judgments:-

i. M. Elangovan Vs. Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank, reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 621;

ii. The Secretary to Government Vs. N. Ponniah, reported in 2007 WLR 903;

iii. A. Shahul Hameed Vs. The Special Commissioner, reported in 2007 WLR 601;

iv. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781;

v. V. Mallika, Vs. Secretary to Government, reported in 2011 (8) MLJ 256;

vi. K. Deivendran Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 576.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, reiterating averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that even though the petitioner had not caused any monetary loss to the Government exchequer, as she did not follow the Rules and Regulations of the Governments Servants, by making false entries in the records, the third respondent came to the conclusion that the charge No.3 is proved against her. On basis of the same, the first respondent passed the final orders, which are under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted that even though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, after a lapse of six years, the delay was due to administrative reasons, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court.

6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.

7. It is not in dispute that the charges relate to the year 1995 -1996. The charge memo to the petitioner was issued, on 24.01.2002, i.e., ne