JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the charge memo issued by the first respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1, dated 19.08.2021 and the consequential order of the first respondent herein passed in his Roc.No.71/2019/V1, dated 12.10.2021 appointing the second respondent herein as Inquiry Officer and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the charge memo issued by the first respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1, dated 19.08.2021 and the consequential order of the first respondent herein passed in his Roc.No.71/2019/V1, dated 12.10.2021 appointing the second respondent herein as Enquiry Officer and quash the same.

2. The petitioner has joined originally as Junior Assistant under the services of the respondent(s) on 25.01.1993 and was promoted as Assistant in 2001. He was further promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer in 2008 and as Block Development Officer in the year 2017. On 03.01.2019, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended). A charge-sheet was filed against him in Spl.C.C.No.3/2020 on 10.11.2020 before the Special Court-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur District.

3. The respondents-Department simultaneously framed charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against the petitioner. In response to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.09.2021 to the first respondent. The first respondent has appointed the second respondent as Enquiry Officer, vide proceedings dated 12.10.2021. Challenging the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

4. The learned counsel straightaway drew the attention of this Court to the impugned charge memo, by which charges under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules, were framed. He further submitted that the framing of charges, is invalid. He also referred to a recent decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.354 and 357 of 2019, dated 06.08.2021, relating to identical circumstances in which this Court allowed the said Writ Petitions, relevant portion of which, is extracted hereunder:

"The petitioners have challenged the impugned charge memos in P.R.Nos.10 & 11/2018, dated 24.12.2018. Another person named M.Mohamed Khan was issued with charge memo P.R.No.9/2018 dated 24.12.2018.

2. The delinquent in P.R.No.9 of 2018 had filed W.P.No.516 of 2019. By an order dated 15.07.2021, the Charge Memo No.9/2018 dated 24.12.2018 has been quashed with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings in terms of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.

3. The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as follows:-

"?5. A combined reading of all the aforesaid provisions reveals that, whenever the delinquent is levelled with charges of corruption or the charges of corruption are combined with other charges, the T.D.P would be the appropriate authority to deal with the disciplinary proceedings and in all other cases, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, shall apply. Apparently, rule 17(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, deals with the procedures to be adopted in cases, where such disciplinary action is adopted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had questioned the jurisdiction of the respondent herein to initiate departmental action by framing of charges.

7. In the instant case, the charges levelled against the petitioner by the respondent herein pertains to corruption and other charges and in view of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the Tri