COMMON ORDER

The W.P.(MD).No.22645 of 2015 has been filed by R.Sundaram for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in Letter (2 D) No.127, dated 27.11.2012 and the consequential proceedings in ROC No.B1/414/2012 (TDP No.46/2012)

dated 17.05.2013.

2. The W.P.(MD).No.6030 of 2016 has been filed by S.Ramamoorthy for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order in Lr.No. 15751/ ME1/15-7 dated 11.03.2016 and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as the Joint Director of Municipal Administration, from the date on par with that of the date of promotion of the third respondent to the said post i.e., 18.08.2012 with all attendant benefits.

3. The petitioners were appointed as Municipal Commissioner on promotional basis and had served in various places. When the petitioners were holding the post of Municipal Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality during the year 2001, there was an allegation of misappropriation of the GPF by the Junior Assistant, namely, Tmt.Jothi @ Marutha Narayani in the Municipality and the same relates to a period even prior to the petitioners' tenure in Kovilpatti. But contrary to all the records, a charge memo was issued by the second respondent, dated 21.09.2009 framing nine charges under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

4. The petitioners submitted a defence statement on 12.10.2009 and the petitioner’s contention is that the main allegation against the petitioners is only Lack of Supervision and there is no criminal misconduct or misappropriation alleged against the petitioners in the said charge memo, hence, resorting to action under Rule 17(b) itself is not warranted as per the orders of the Government in Letter Na.Ka.No.34806 /2008/C2. An enquiry officer was appointed on 20.03.2010, the enquiry proceedings were recorded on 28.02.2011 and the enquiry officer submitted his report during December 2011. The first respondent had accepted the finding of the enquiry officer as not proved and dropped all further proceedings levelled against the petitioners and passed the final order in G.O.No.396 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.06.2015.

5. However, for the same issue, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has also initiated action in Crime No.3 of 2011 and filed the FIR on 21.06.2011. After three years, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has closed the FIR and requested the Government to proceed with the departmental enquiry proceeding by the third respondent on the same act of misconduct which has already been initiated by the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 21.09.2008 and enquiry already been completed and closed.

6. The petitioner further submits that to one of the accused officer namely Mr.S.Ramamoorthy, the second respondent in his letter R.C.No. 51004/2010/V2(OP4), dated 10.07.2013 addressed to the first respondent clarified clearly that the charge memo already issued by the second respondent, dated 04.09.2009 is one and the same, now being considered by the third respondent in his proceedings, dated 17.05.2013. Therefore, he has concluded that no parallel enquiry is required for taking disciplinary action by the third respondent on the same allegations on the ground that the charges framed by the second respondent have already been examined by appointing an Enquiry Officer and the enquiry proceedings have already been completed in December 2011 itself and final orders were passed by the first respondent after lapse of three years is untenable. However, the first respondent has issued a Letter No.28545/ ME4/201204, dated 29.05.2014 directing the third respondent to proceed with the charges framed by the third respondent in his proceedings, dated

17.05.2013.

7. The contention of the petitioners is that the first respondent without knowing the fact that there was already a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petiti