The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of latches, emphasizing the importance of approaching the appropriate authorities and courts within a reasonable period of time and the impact of delay on equity.

ORDER :

1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to cancel the charge memo and regulate the period of suspension is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined as a Junior Engineer in TWAD Board and promoted up to the level of Executive Engineer and retired from service on 31.01.2005.

3. The departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the proceedings ended with an order of punishment. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005 and in respect of the proceedings issued in the year 1997 by the Managing Director, directing the Managing Director to initiate criminal action, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31439 of 2015, to direct the authorities to dispose of the representation. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 06.10.2015, the respondents considered the representation and passed an order on 08.12.2015, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

4. The cause of action aroused in the year 1997, when the Board issued a direction for initiation of criminal action and departmental disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was imposed with the punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. While so, he filed a writ petition in the year 2015 after a lapse of 10 years from the date of his retirement and pursuant to the order of direction to dispose of the representation, he secured the impugned order and thereafter, filed the present writ petition as if the cause of action aroused based on the order dated 08.12.2015.

5. There is a growing practice in High Court of Madras that the lapsed cause of actions are restored after several years by sending a representation to the authorities and thereafter, filing a writ petition for a direction to consider the representation. High Court also in a routine manner issuing such direction to consider the representation. Taking undue advantage of such directions, some of the litigants are working out their remedy in a malicious manner and through corrupt practices. Wherever the claims are rejected, then they are filing fresh writ petition as if the cause of action aroused currently. Apart from the fact that these kind of frivolous litigations are contributing for huge pendency. The very practice is to be construed as unethical and to be deprecated.

6. Any employee, who is aggrieved, is expected to approach the Appellate Authority, Statutory Authority and the Court of Law as the case may be within a reasonable period of time. Once, the actions of the Executives remained unchallenged, then it cannot be challenged after several years by adopting a novel procedure by sending a representation and filing a writ petition to consider the representation and thereafter, challenged the order pursuant to the order passed by the High Court.

7. The date of cause of action initially aroused is to be taken into consideration for deciding the issues. Lapsed cause of actions cannot be restored after several years. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner pursuant to the Board’s Resolution of the year 1997. The punishment was imposed in the year 2005 and the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation in the year 2015, after a lapse of about 10 years from the date of his retirement and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31439 2015 and this Court passed an order on 06.10.2015, directing the respondents to consider the representation and based on that, the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 was issued. Thereafter, the impugned order cannot be construed as a cause aroused for the purpose of filing the present writ petition and it is an order, which was passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in respect of the lapsed claim and thus, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches.

8. The principles regarding the delay and latches are settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Co