The central legal point established in the judgment is that delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, especially for charges related to events from many years ago, is unjustified and violates the principles of natural justice.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant intra court Writ Appeals as against the Common Order dated 09.06.2014 in W.P. No. 9280 to 9282 of 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the Impugned Common Order dated 09.06.2014 in W.P. Nos. 9280 to 9282 of 2011 in Paragraph No. 16 had observed the following:-

“16. A careful reading of the above decisions of the Apex Court abundantly makes it clear that the protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of the inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. Moreover, the petitioner, who was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector from the post of Tahsildar has been deprived of the said promotion by the third respondent/District Collector, Tiruvarur. Admittedly, there has been huge unexplained delay of 31 years in issuing charge memo stating that at the time of getting appointment, the petitioner made a false statement that none of the family members of the deceased employee was in Government Service. Till now, he has not been relieved from the post of Special Tahsildar to join the post of Deputy Collector. Therefore, at this juncture, it is necessary to draw the curtain and put an and on the sole ground of 31 years of unexplained delay in taking steps to enquire into the allegation relating to the year 1980. Secondly, even after his promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, vide order dated 18.02.2011, for the past three and a half years not allowing him to function as Deputy Collector is itself a huge mental agony, therefore, as the petitioner has already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings, and as matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner underwent due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much worse than the punishment.”

Finally opined that the charges levelled against the Respondent/Petitioner were related to the year 1980, namely 31 years ago and it was not known why the Department had not taken up this matter 30 years ago and interfered with the impugned orders/charge memos and resultantly allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the Impugned Charge Memos. Moreover, the Learned Single Judge had also quashed the Impugned Order in G.O. (2D) No. 291 Revenue (Ser.1) 3rd-Department, dated 13.07.2011 and directed the Appellant/ Respondent/District Collector, Thiruvarur to relieve the Respondent/Petitioner from the post of Tahsildar, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Being dissatisfied with the Common Order dated 09.06.2014 in W.P. Nos. 9280 to 9282 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellants have filed the present Writ Appeals before this Court as Aggrieved Persons.

4. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants/ Respondents, the Impugned Common Order dated 09.06.2014 in W.P. Nos. 9280 to 9282 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge is against Law, Weight of Evidence and Probabilities of the Case.

5. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants urges before this Court that the Respondent/Petitioner, Tahsildar, Tiruvarur District, Revenue Unit was included in the Deputy Collector list in S. No. 47 rotation and turn No. 46 vide G.O. (Ms). No. 47 Revenue (Ser.1), Department dated 10.02.2011 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam, Tiruchirapalli Corporation in terms of G.O. (2D) No. 95 Revenue (Ser.1) Department dated 18.02.2011.

6. It is represented on behalf of the Appellants that after inclusion of Respondent/ Petitioner's name in the Deputy Collector List, fresh charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Control Rules, 1955 were framed as per 3rd Respondent/District Collector, Tiruvarur's proceedings in R.C. No. 25137/2010/A1 dated 21.02.20