ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the second respondent in G.O.(D)No.159, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME.4) Department, dated 11.05.2020.

2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Assistant Engineer, a charge memo dated 29.04.2015, containing two charges has been issued, alleging that he did not take any action for construction in violation of approved plan. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer filed a report, holding that charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The first respondent deviating from the enquiry report, issued a notice dated 06.11.2019 to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.12.2019. The second respondent without considering his explanation, imposed the punishment of censure. Challenging the order of punishment, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working in the said post from 23.03.2007 to 24.11.2007. During his tenure, he issued provisional notice on 12.11.2007 and petitioner was transferred and relieved from the said post on 24.11.2007. The reason given by the second respondent for deviating from the report of the Enquiry Officer is that the petitioner did not follow up the provisional notice. The second respondent failed to consider the explanation given by the petitioner that he was transferred and relieved from the said post on 24.11.2007. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches. The alleged occurrence took place in the year 2007, charge memo was issued in the year 2015, after eight years of occurrence and disciplinary proceedings were concluded, after five years of issuance of charge memo i.e., on 11.05.2020. The delay in initiating and imposing punishment vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the impugned punishment is to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the punishment of censure, the petitioner deprived of his promotion and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

4. Mr.P.Subbaraj, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner has committed misconduct by not taking any action, when the building was constructed in deviation of the approval plan. The petitioner having issued with provisional notice, failed to take further action for imposing penalty and also for demolition of the deviated portion. For the said misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after following the procedure, the punishment of censure was imposed. The second respondent has taken lenient view and imposed punishment of censure. The second respondent has given valid reason for imposing punishment and prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner while working as an Assistant Engineer, a charge memo dated 29.04.2015, was issued stating that he did not impose penalty for construction of the building in violation of approved plan. The incident occurred in the year 2007. The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings in the year 2015, by issuing charge memo dated 29.04.2015. The respondents have not explained the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. Further, the Enquiry Officer has given a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The second respondent deviated from the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a notice. The reason for deviation is that the petitioner after issuing provisional n