The court ruled that a second charge memo, being a replica of a previously quashed memo, was invalid, emphasizing the principle of non-duplication of disciplinary charges.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016 and further directing the respondents to give benefits inclusive of promotion.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Junior Assistant in the Mailam Panchayat Union on 27.02.1985 on compassionate appointment, on account of the sudden death of his deceased father, who served as a social welfare worker in the said department. Later his services were regularized after the completion of one year and which was declared in the year 1986. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant on 08.10.1993, later to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer on 08.07.2019 at Olakkur Panchayat Union. The petitioner is serving as Deputy Block Development Officer, Vanur Panchayat Union as on date of filing of the writ petition. A charge memo was initially issued by the first respondent along with the Block Development Officer, Manager and Accountant on 28.10.1997 vide Proceedings No.Rc.9479/97/VCII-1, the same was cancelled vide G.O.[1D]No.102, dated 27.02.2003 pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 dated 01.11.2001. Thereafter, a second charge memo dated 01.11.1999 was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner. Subsequently, the enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was passed with an order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by the second respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charges framed against the petitioner are that while functioning as a Junior Assistant in Mylam Panchayat Union during the period from 27.05.1985 to 31.07.1988, the petitioner was in connivance with the Block Development Officer in the purchase of spares at exorbitant rates in contravention of the departmental orders without verifying the market rates, thereby instrumental in causing monetary loss to the panchayat Union. The petitioner is not the authority to float tenders and purchase materials, as it is primarily vested with the Commissioner as well as the panchayat union council.

4. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner absolutely has no knowledge about the sanction accorded by the Commissioner and the decision taken by the Panchayat Union Council to purchase the materials from the various co-operative institutions. The petitioner was not a party to any of the file note and the petitioner does not have absolute access to the decision taken by the BDO. Aggrieved by the issue of the charge memo dated 28.10.1997, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal [as it was then] to quash the charge memo issued by the first respondent. The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, by order dated 01.11.2001, allowed the Original Application filed by the petitioner by quashing the charge memo dated 28.10.1997. The first respondent accepted the findings rendered in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 and ultimately issued G.O.[1D]No.102 dated 27.02.2003 implementing the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and consequently dropped further action on the charge memo dated 28.10.1997.

5. While being so, the second respondent herein issued another charge memo on the same set of facts during the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceedings in Rc.No.5448/98/PA5 dated 01.11.1999 alleging that from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989 the petitioner has abetted and aided the Block Development Officer in the purchase of power pumps spares in contravention to the departmental orders without verifying the then prevailing market rates and thereby he had been instrumental in causing monetary loss in Mailam Panchayat Union. It is seen that along with the petitioner, the same