Belated fresh charge memo superseding earlier one without reasons for delay, issued pre-retirement for same misconduct, is impermissible and quashable.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Both these applications have been filed by one M. Revathi. In the OA No. 1400 of 2015, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant pursuant nd to the charge memo issued by the 2 respondent in ref SMR/ESTT/CEM/390, dated 13.10.1999 and quash the same and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant”

2. In the OA No.547 of 2022, the relief sought for is as follows:

“To call for the records relating to the impugned st charge memo issued by the 1 respondent in No.34(2)(8)/2022-CCO, dated 27.05.2022, and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the applicant to retire from service with effect from 31.05.2022 and grant her all consequential benefits and render justice”

3. Brief Facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant was employed as Scientist – B at SAMEER (Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering & Research), Chennai. She was initially appointed as Scientific Assistant – C on 08.04.1987 and was promoted to Scientific Officer SB on 01.08.1991, and further to Scientific Officer – SC on 01.08 1997. In 2000, she was reverted to the post of Scientific Officer Grade – B, which was subsequently re- designated as Scientist – B. A disciplinary action was initiated against her through a Charge Memo (Ref: SMR/ESTT/CEM/390, dated 13.10. 1999, alleging she obtained LTC benefits despite canceling the journey. This action led to a reduction in her pay scale, which was confirmed in appeal on 02.05.2000. The applicant challenged this decision in WP No.3319 of 2001 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court which by an order, dated 25.07.2003, set aside the punishment citing insufficient consideration of relevant facts and disproportionate punishment. The Court further directed the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity hearing to the applicant. The respondents appealed this decision in WA No.2973 of 2003. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal and mandated the inquiry proceedings be completed within three months. The respondents then filed Civil Appeal No.2711 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeal on 26.05.2010 with liberty to them to hold regular fresh inquiry and finalize the same within a period of six months. The departmental proceedings resumed on November 25.11.2010, where the applicant denied all charges. During a second inquiry on 03.12.2010, the applicant requested the change of Inquiry Officer on account of bias, but this request was rejected on 02.05.2011. The applicant appealed to the Chairman and Appellate Authority on 10.05.2011, but no further progress was made. The applicant also submits that on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, she was denied promotions. She also cited the case of one Mrs. Mahalakshmi who is the immediate junior had given promotion to Scientific Officer (SD) and Scientific Officer SE.

4. Given the lack of progress since the Supreme Court's 2010 order, the applicant filed OA No.1400 of 2015 with this Tribunal. While this case was pending and with her retirement approaching on 31.05. 2022, the applicant received a fresh Charge Memo on 27.05.2022, concerning the same LTC claim issue for the block year 1996-1997. This Charge Memo was served on June 01.06.2022. Challenging the same, OA No.547 of 2022 has been filed by her.

5. The learned counsel f