The delay in serving the charge memo, the relevance of the criminal case's outcome on departmental proceedings, and the similarity of charges in the criminal and departmental proceedings are crucial factors in determining the validity of the charge memo and subsequent proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the third respondent in Letter/Memo No.20744/2007/A3 dated 09.01.2012 actually served on the petitioner on 03.06.2019 and the subsequent impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in R.C.A3/20744/2007 dated 08.08.2021 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to retire from service as on the date of retirement on 30.09.2009 with all consequential retirement benefits and regular Pension and other attendant benefits.)

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the third respondent in Letter/Memo No.20744/2007/A3 dated 09.01.2012 actually served on the petitioner on 03.06.2019 and the subsequent impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in R.C.A3/20744/2007 dated 08.08.2021 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to retire from service as on the date of retirement on 30.09.2009 with all consequential retirement benefits and regular Pension and other attendant benefits.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner viz., S.Jacob was working as Tahsildar in Ambattur, a complaint was made against him by one S.Kannan, as if the petitioner demanded money for issuance of Solvency Certificate which culminated into filing of Criminal case in S.C.No.7 of 2007 and the same was ended in acquittal as per order dated 27.03.2012 and thereby, the petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charges, duly confirmed in the order passed in the Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2013 dated 26.10.2017. This being so, on 03.06.2019 i.e., after a period of seven years, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 09.01.2012 by the third respondent on the same count of demanding Rs.5000/- from S.Kannan for issuance of Solvency Certificate. In order to enquire the same, Deputy Collector was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry on 23.01.2020, wherein the petitioner participated and subsequent to the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 13.02.2020. While so, the third respondent issued a communication dated 16.12.2020, appointing another Enquiry Officer viz., Mr.G.Balaguru to re-enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner on the remarks of DV & AC. Subsequently, the third respondent has issued another communication dated 08.08.2021, appointing another Enquiry Officer namely Mr.P.Selvam to re-enquire the same charges framed against the petitioner. Aggrieved over the aforesaid Memo dated 09.01.2012 and the communication dated 08.08.2021, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Tahsildar in Ambattur and he has been falsely implicated in the case by one S.Kannan that he has demanded money for issuance of Solvency Certificate and the Criminal case has been filed in C.S.No.7 of 2007 against the petitioner and the same has been ended in acquittal as per order dated 27.03.2013 against which, the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.735 of 2013 and this Court by its order dated 26.10.2017, dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the acquittal order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge, Tiruvallur. In this case, a Charge Memo was issued on 09.01.2012 by the third respondent but the same was served on the petitioner only on 03.06.2019, after a period of 7 years. It is pertinent to note that the criminal case filed against the petitioner vide C.S.No.7 of 2007 has been ended in acquittal as per order dated 27.03.2013, however, charge memo dated 09.01.2012 was served to the petitioner only on 03.06.2019,