Disciplinary proceedings for employee misconduct can be maintained irrespective of delays from earlier actions, emphasizing the right to investigate allegations of financial irregularities.

ORDER :

1. Both writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner and arguments were advanced in common by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and therefore, a common order is passed.

2. The writ petition in W.P.No.12242 of 2025 has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the charge memo dated 25.08.2024 and consequential notice in Na.Ka.No.92/2004 Tha.Ku.Na.Va. dated 10.03.2025 and 26.03.2025 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same. The petitioner seeks that his service benefits be settled, as he will be attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2025.

3. The writ petition in W.P.No.12244 of 2025 has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari seeking records relating to an order of suspension passed by the second respondent dated 29.03.2025 in Na.Ka.No.11/2025 Pa.Tho and quash the same.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions, it had been contended that the writ petitioner M.Senthilvelan had been appointed as Junior Assistant in the second respondent Bank/Dharmapuri Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., Dharmapuri on 02.01.1991. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Manager on 07.03.2024 and later, as General Manager in-charge from 11.01.2024 to 21.01.2025. He is now functioning as Assistant Manager in the second respondent Bank. He is set to retire from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2025. In the affidavit, the writ petitioner categorized his services as 'unblemished with the satisfaction of all concerned for the past 34 years.' However, as the records reveal, this is not the case.

5. Charges have been levied against the petitioner for fraud and that the second respondent Bank has suffered a loss of Rs.2,87,48,492.30. The allegation of such a significant loss can never be categorized as 'unblemished service with the satisfaction of all concerned.' The petitioner must clear his records before placing the blame on the respondents for suspending him and issuing a charge memo against him.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the charge memo, which is the subject matter in W.P.No. 12242 of 2025, was dated 10.03.2025 and in the reference, there was a reference to a show cause notice issued on 19.11.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the charge memo on the grounds that the show-cause notice was initially issued in 2005, and after 20 years, the respondents have suddenly taken action against the petitioner. In this connection, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the former Administrator of the second respondent Dharmapuri Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., Dharmapuri, M.Raja, who gave his opinion that initiation of any action against the petitioner is time barred and therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to retire with all pending benefits.

7. However, in the counter affidavit, an additional fact has been stated which was not disclosed in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions. It is noted that M. Raja, Deputy Registrar, who had provided such an opinion in favour of the petitioner, has been suspended from Government service as per G.O. (2D) No. 41, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CD-2) Department, dated 29.04.2024. He passed t