R. MadhavanAssistant Director of Rural Development (Retired)Regional Institute of Rural DevelopmentBhavani SagarErode v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-When the petitioner herein was working as Assistant Director ofRural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, the secondrespondent herein issued a charge memo in Roc. No.51311/07/DPC-22dated 17.09.2007, based on the complaint given by one D. Kalavathiclaiming herself as the second wife of the petitioner. The chargesagainst the petitioner are as follows:-i)That he has married Tmt. D. Kalavathiin the year 1985 who is residing at No.2/784,V.O.C. Nagar, Pidamanery, Kumarasamypet Post,DharmapuriDistrict and working as Noon MealOrganiser at Thiruvalluvar Arivagam,Kumarasamypet, Dharmapuri District when he isalready having a wife by name Tmt. Premavathy,residing at Block No.15, Padmavathy Nagar, VGNGarden Road, Nelumbur, Mogappair West,Chennai – 37.ii)That he has entered into a secondmarriage when already having a spouse livingand thus he violated Rule 19 (ii) of Tamil NaduGovernment Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973."The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 25.10.2007denying the charges enclosing the below mentioned documents i)Invitation of his marriage held on 18.06.1972 withPremavathyii)School Certificate of his son M. Punithaniii)School Certificate of his daughter M. Kavithaiv)Copy of the Birth Certificate of Mr. Praveen Kumar, son ofsaid D. Kalavathi wherein it is shown that Karunanithi is his fatherv)Registered Sale deed dated 01.06.1990 executed in favourof one Athimoolam and Kalavathi wherein Athimoolam was stated asKalavathi's husband vi)Gift Deed dated 09.05.1994 executed by Athimoolam infavour of Kalavathi mentioning her as his wifevii)Encumbrance Certificate dated 17.08.2007viii)House warming ceremony invitation dated 09.02.1997 in thename of Kalavathiix)Ration Card No.09/P/046099 (1998-2003) issued in the nameof Kalavathi and her familyx)Copy of Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette No.23 dated12.06.2002 issued at the instance of Kalavadhi for changing herson's name as M. Praveenkumar instead of K. Praveenkumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ xi)Petitioner's ration card No. 01/W/0014850 (2005-2009)xii)Photo identity card dated 26.01.2001 issued by ElectionCommission of India to the petitioner at Dharmapuri Constituencyxiii)Photo identity card dated 28.03.2006 issued to thePetitioner at Villivakkam ConstituencyOn receipt of the petitioner's explanation, the secondrespondent appointed Mr. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, Joint Director ofRural Development, Project Officer, Mahalir Thittam, Dharmapuri asenquiry officer. The enquiry officer has sent notice to Kalavathito appear for an enquiry on 13.02.2008, but she has sent a letterdated 05.02.2008 to the respondents 1 and 2 herein stating that shewas not interested in pursuing the complaint, which was alsoforwarded to the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the said letter,the Enquiry Officer again sent a notice directing Kalavathi toappear for an enquiry on 27.02.2008, but she did not turn up.Thereafter,the enquiry officer, with the available records,concluded the enquiry and found that both the charges are not provedand submitted his report to the respondents on 29.02.2008. Thefirst respondent is also fully aware that the date of superannuationof the petitioner was 31.03.2008, but not chosen to consider theenquiry officer's report before the said date, however, allowed himto retire from his service reserving their right to proceed againsthim further. The petitioner, having waited for a long period andthe first respondent has not taken any steps to pass final orders inthe disciplinary proceedings, has filed WP No. 9708 of 2008 seekingdirection to the first respondent to pass final orders within areasonable time and this Court also disposed it on 22.04.2008directing the respondents to pass final orders in the disciplinaryproceedings within a period of four months. Thereafter, the firstrespondent sent the impugned communication of second show causenotice dated 03.06.2008 informing the petitioner that he disagreeswith the findings of the enquiry officer on the alleged ground thatcircumstantial evidence produced by the said Kalavathi are clinchingand prove that the petitioner married her when the first marriagewith Mrs.Premavathy subsists and called upon him to submit hisexplanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same.The said communication is impugned in this writ petition.3.The case of the respondents as could be seen from theircommon counter affidavit is as follows:-Based on the complaint given by the said Kalavathi along withphotographs and records to show that she married the petitioner, apreliminary enquiry was ordered at the level of Additional Directorof Rural Development from the Directorate who personally enquiredKalavathi and the petitioner and after verification of the documentsfurnished by both sides, the authority found that the petitioner hasviolated Rule 19 (ii) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants ConductRules, 1993. Based on the preliminary enquiry report, the chargesunder Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appeal andDisciplinary) Rules, were framed against the petitioner for bigamy.In the enquiry, the petitioner has produced the documentary evidencerelating to his marriage with first wife only, whereas, the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kalavathi furnished proof “for the illegal relationship” with thepetitioner, which was not refuted by the petitioner with concreteevidence. The enquiry officer failed to consider the documentaryevidence produced by the said Kalavathi namely (i) Family Card No.09/G/0354247 of 2005-2009 issued by Civil Supplies and ConsumerProtection Department (ii) Identity card of Kalavathi issued byDharmapuri Assembly Constituency on 04.10.2000 (iii) Coursecompletion certificate and conduct certificate dated 18.05.2007 inthe name of Praveen Kumar issued by the college where he is studying(iv) Letter of petitioner dated 27.12.2007 addressed to Porutchelvirequesting her to handover money borrowed by her to his wifeKalavathi (v) LIC Policy dated 14.11.2003 in the name of Kalavathiand (vi) Photographs and the said documents were considered by thefirst respondent and rightly issued the second show cause notice bydisagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. Thedisciplinary authority has every right to disagree with the findingsof the enquiry officer when evidence is available to connect thedelinquent officer with the imputation of charges4.Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner submitted as follows:-The respondents averred that a preliminary enquiry wasconducted in which the petitioner as well as Kalavathi appeared andproduced documents and thereafter, the charge memo was issued, whichis factually incorrect, indeed no such preliminary enquiry wasconducted. If any such preliminary enquiry is conducted, the reportof the same should have been served along with the charge memo, butnot served; that even the documents stated to have been produced bythe said Kalavathi along with the complaint were not even furnishedto the petitioner along with the charge memo, which amounts todenial of opportunity; that the petitioner denied all the charges inhis explanation and produced relevant documentary evidence to showthat the charges are false; that the said Kalavathi each and everytime changed her husband/husbands name and prayed for permission tocross-examine her; that the said Kalavathi, even before the date ofenquiry has sent a communication that she was not pursuing hercomplaint; that nevertheless the said letter, the enquiry officerhas sent notice to her directing her to appear for an enquiry, butshe did not choose to appear; that even any such documents receivedby the respondents from Kalavathi, the same should be consideredonly after marking it by her before the enquiry officer; that whenKalavathi has admittedly not marked any of the documents, thedocuments relied on by the first respondent to issue the impugnedshow cause notice is based on the same, which is untenable; thatwhen disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of theenquiry officer, he must assign valid reason, but no such validreason is assigned in the second show cause notice except relying onunmarked documents; that the complainant herself has chosen to senda letter informing the enquiry officer that she was not pursuing thecomplaint besides that she did not appear despite notice from theenquiry officer, which factors were properly considered by theenquiry officer and found that both the charges against thepetitioner were not proved. Whereas, the first respondentdeliberately ignored the said vital factors and erroneously issuedthe impugned communication and prayed for quashing of the same. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ support of his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions:-i)(K. Govindasamy vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies CorporationLimited, rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras and another)1998 Writ Law Reporter 486 wherein a learned single Judge of thisCourt in Para Nos.11 and 13 held thus:-"11........Admittedly, no one was examined onthe side of the Corporation/Management and noopportunity was given to the petitioner to examinethe witnesses as claimed by him in the Questionnaireform. Hence, the contention of the learned counselfor the petitioner is well founded and the punishmentimposed on the petitioner is vitiated.13.Further, it is settled law that it is forthe management to prove the charges beyond any doubt.Merely because the petitioner did not seekopportunity that would not mean that charges wereestablished. As observed by Shivaraj Patil, J., in adecision reported in N. Ramakrishnan vs. T.N.C.S.Corporation Ltd (1995 II LLN 1081) it was for themanagement to establish the charges by the materialson record. As a matter of fact, in our case, it isseen that the petitioner not only denied the chargesbut also sought permission to examine witnesses onhis side even in the Questionnaire form. The saidprocedure has not been followed. Kanakaraj, J., inW.P. No. 11145 of 1987 dated 19.02.1991 has taken thesame view that failure to follow the said principlevitiates the enquiry and ultimate order passed by therespondents. Abdul Wahab, J., in a decision reportedin (1997 (2) LLN 892) K. Mohan Doss vs. T.N. CivilSupplies Corporation has held that without examiningany witness and marking documents, submission of areport by the Enquiry Officer and basing on thatreport, imposition of punishment cannot be sustainedand the procedure adopted for enquiry is not proper.In Writ Appeal No. 782 of 1992 dated 18.03.1997, theDivision Bench of this Court, in a similarcircumstance, has held as follows:-"...We are of the view and it is by nowwell-settled that in a domestic enquiry, as in aregular trial the burden of proof ofestablishing the guilt on a charge is always onthe accuser and not on the accused and thisburden must be discharged fully in conformitywith the principles of natural justice. Theemployer should take steps first to leadevidence against the workmen charged, give himan opportunity to cross-examine the saidevidence and then should ask the concernedworkman whether he wants to give any explanationabout the evidence led against him. Before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ asking the workman to produce his evidence, itwas also held in catena of cases, that it is notfair at the very outset to closely cross-examineeven at the commencement of the domestic enquirythe delinquent officer concerned and act uponthe answers given or materials gathered duringthe preliminary enquiry, without making it partof the regular enquiry during the course of thedomestic enquiry held by the enquiry officerappointed for the purpose. The procedureadopted by the domestic enquiry officer in thiscase as also the materials relied upon could notbe said to be a legal one and enquiry isvitiated seriously. The order of punishmentpassed on the basis of such enquiry and theenquiry report cannot also be sustained by us."ii)(S. Sargunam vs. T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,(rep. by its Senior Regional Manager), Thanjavur Region, Thanjavurand others) 2001 (3) L.L.N. 665 wherein in Para No.11, a learnedsingle Judge observed thus:-"11.I fail to understand as to how thecharges against the petitioner could be held tohave been proved without examining any one ofthe witnesses or by producing documents for theperusal of the petitioner considering thenature of the charges. For instance,withreference to charge No.1, the charge is thatthe petitioner has tampered the records inorder to change the number of gunnies notedagainst the condition of the gunnies and inorder to hide the actual transaction held inthis case. To this charge, the petitioner hadexplained that he had not signed theacknowledgments anywhere in the loading points.The said charge cannot be proved without theproduction of the records, which are alleged tohave been tampered and without adducing oralevidence to speak to the alleged tampering ofthe records."5.Mr. Gurunathan, learned Government Advocate appearing forthe respondents submitted that preliminary enquiry was conducted, aprima facie case was made out against the petitioner and thereafter,the charge memo under Rule 17 (b) was issued; that the documentsproduced by the said Kalavadhi are clinching to prove that thepetitioner married her when the first marriage was subsisting; thatthe said documents were not properly considered by the enquiryofficer; that the first respondent/disciplinary authority has everyright to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer when theenquiry officer failed to consider the valid evidence and rightlyissued the second show cause notice; that the petitioner was allowedto retire reserving the right of the respondents to proceed againsthim pursuant to the charge memo, hence, the date of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ superannuation no way assumes importance and prayed for dismissal ofthe writ petition.6. This Court carefully considered the submission of bothsides and perused the material records. The disciplinary enquirystarts with a written complaint from somebody except the cases wherethe fact must be brought to the notice of the punishing authority ormisconduct may be noticed by him personally and he may straightawaygive the charge sheet without any complaint or preliminaryinvestigation. In case a complaint is received, it is alwaysnecessary and desirable that such complaint must be reduced intowriting. In this case, it is stated that Kalavathi gave a complaintin writing against the petitioner, but the copy of the complaint wasnot served on the petitioner. The respondents have contended thatthey have conducted preliminary enquiry, which was denied by thepetitioner and stated that no such preliminary enquiry was conductedor copies of the preliminary enquiry report was furnished to him.If the copies of the preliminary enquiry report are not supplied,then the irresistible conclusion is that the delinquent had beenprejudiced. Therefore, it is necessary to supply the copies of theprior statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry in order togive reasonable opportunity to the delinquent for cross-examinationas held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Para-6 of the decisionreported in (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman SadashivaVaishampayan) AIR 1961 SC 1623, 1629 which is extracted hereunder:- 6. It has been urged before us by MrKhaskalam that in dealing with the respondent’scontention that the enquiry was defective MrJustice Sen has scrutinised the merits of thefindings made against the respondent in theenquiry as though he was hearing an appealagainst the said order, and that, it is urged,is outside the jurisdiction of the High Courtin entertaining a writ petition under Article226 of the Constitution. It may be concededthat some of the observations made by thelearned judge justified this argument. Thelearned judge has, for instance, commented onthe fact that the charge supplied to therespondent did not give sufficient particulars;and has also expressed his disapproval of theconclusion recorded in the report that therewas overwhelming evidence on the record againstthe respondent; and that may seem likeexamining the correctness of the findings offact recorded in the enquiry; but even if theseobservations made by the learned judge are leftout of consideration on the ground that thelearned judge was not entitled to consider themerits of the findings made against therespondent, there are two points on which thelearned judge has substantially based hisconclusion, and it is on those two points thatit is necessary to concentrate in dealing with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the present appeal. The first point is that therespondent should have been given a copy of theapplication on the strength of which thepreliminary enquiry was started against him;and the second that the statements of Rajab Aliand Noor Bhai recorded by Mr Ghatwal shouldhave been supplied to him. In appreciating thesignificance of these points, it is necessaryto recall the broad features of the evidenceadduced against the respondent. In respect ofeach charge evidence was given by the personwho paid the money to Rajab Ali and Noor Bhaior one of them in order that it should be paidin turn to the respondent. Nooruddin, s/o SaojiVeerani, Noor Mohd., s/o Hasham, and Kasim Bhaiare the three witnesses who gave evidence insupport of the three charges respectively. Thefirst witness said that he had given in all Rs12,000 to Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai in threeinstalments of Rs 3000, Rs 3000 and Rs 6000.Similarly the second witness said that he hadpaid Rs 11,000 to Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai bytwo instalments of Rs 6000 and Rs 5000respectively, and the third witness stated thathe was arrested after the police action, and hewas told that if he paid the respondent Rs 5000he would be released, and so the money waspaid. It is obvious that Rajab Ali and NoorBhai are the principal witnesses against therespondent. It is equally clear from thefindings recorded in the report itself thatthey collected far more than they are allegedto have paid to the respondent in two cases. Infact the report says that the excess amountcollected by these two witnesses had beenquietly pocketed by them. Thus it was of verygreat importance for the defence to cross-examine these two witnesses, and for thatpurpose the respondent wanted copies of theirprior statements recorded by Mr Ghatwal in hispreliminary enquiry. It is difficult tounderstand how these statements could beregarded as secret papers, for that alone isthe reason given for not supplying their copiesto the respondent. Failure to supply the saidcopies to the respondent made it almostimpossible for the respondent to submit thesaid two witnesses to an effective cross-examination; and that in substance deprived therespondent of a reasonable opportunity to meetthe charge. That is the view taken by Sen andBhutt, JJ. and we see no reason to interferewith it. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii)(State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Sharif (dead) throughL.R.s) AIR 1982 SC 937) wherein in Para No.3, it was held by theHonourable Supreme Court thus:- 3......Secondly, it was not disputedbefore us that a preliminary enquiry hadpreceded the disciplinary enquiry and duringthe preliminary enquiry statements of witnesseswere recorded but copies of these statementswere not furnished to him at the time of thedisciplinary enquiry. Even the request of theplaintiff to inspect the file pertaining topreliminary enquiry was also rejected. In theface of these facts which are not disputed itseems to us very clear that both the firstappeal court and the High Court were right incoming to the conclusion that the plaintiff wasdenied reasonable opportunity to defend himselfat the disciplinary enquiry; it cannot begainsaid that in the absence of necessaryparticulars and statements of witnesses he wasprejudiced in the matter of his defence. Havingregard to the aforesaid admitted position it isdifficult to accept the contention urged by thecounsel for the appellant that the view takenby the trial court should be accepted by us. Weare satisfied that the dismissal order has beenrightly held to be illegal, void andinoperative. Since the plaintiff has diedduring the pendency of the proceedings the onlyrelief that would be available to the legalheirs of the deceased is the payment of arrearsof salary and other emoluments payable to thedeceased.7.The petitioner has categorically stated that nopreliminary enquiry was conducted. Even in the counter filed bythe respondents, it is stated that subsequent to the preliminaryenquiry only, charges were framed. As mentioned above, therespondents have not supplied the report of the preliminary to thepetitioner. 8.In any event, preliminary investigation is no substitutefor departmental enquiry even though full opportunity might havebeen given to the delinquent at the preliminary stage.9.In a disciplinary proceedings against a governmentservant, it is for the government to substantiate the charges andit is not for the civil servant to substantiate his defence. Eventhe provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable in adepartmental enquiry, yet, the respondents are required toestablish the allegations by producing evidence. Even thecontention that documents were shown to the delinquent is notsufficient. It is the duty of the respondents to adduce documentsin evidence at the enquiry so that the delinquent, by cross- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examination, test the truth of the statements made therein byadducing evidence on his side.10.In the case on hand, the complainant refused to appearbefore the enquiry officer despite notice, but the impugned secondshow cause notice was caused by the first respondent relying on theunmarked documents of the complainant. When the burden lies on thefirst respondent to establish the charges, it is not proper for thefirst respondent to issue second show cause notice and place theburden on the petitioner to prove his innocence, which is opposedto the Rules of natural justice. Non-examination of thecomplainant certainly prejudice the right of the petitioner whichhas not been taken into consideration by the first respondent. Inthis connection, the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Courtmentioned below can be usefully referred to :-i)(Khem Chand vs. Union of India and others) AIR 1958 SC300 wherein in Para No. 19, it was held by the Honourable SupremeCourt as follows:-"19......(b)an opportunity to defendhimself by cross-examining the witnessesproduced against him and by examining himselfor any other witnesses in support of hisdefence...."ii)In (K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India and others) AIR1984 SC 273 wherein in Para Nos. 41 and 43, the Honourable SupremeCourt held thus:- 41. It is true that all actions against aparty which involve penal or adverseconsequences must be in accordance with theprinciples of natural justice but whether anyparticular principle of natural justice wouldbe applicable to a particular situation or thequestion whether there has been any infractionof the application of that principle, has to bejudged, in the light of facts and circumstancesof each particular case. The basic requirementis that there must be fair play in action andthe decision must be arrived at in a just andobjective manner with regard to the relevanceof the materials and reasons. We must reiterateagain that the rules of natural justice areflexible and cannot be put on any rigidformula. In order to sustain a complaint ofviolation of principles of natural justice onthe ground of absence of opportunity of cross-examination, it has to be established thatprejudice has been caused to the appellant bythe procedure followed...... 43.It is manifest, therefore, thatabsence of any denial by the appellant, indeedadmissions on the factual basis and nature of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the explanation offered by the appellant wereconsidered by the authority to merit theimposition of the penalty of dismissal. Such aconclusion could not, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, be considered to beunreasonable or one which no reasonable mancould make." iii)(Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., vs. Girja Shankar Pantand others) AIR 2001 SC 24 wherein in Para No.21, it was held thus:- 21. Incidentally, Hidayatullah, C.J. inChannabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysorerecorded the need of compliance with certainrequirements in a departmental enquiry — at anenquiry facts have to be proved and the personproceeded against must have an opportunity tocross-examine witnesses and to give his ownversion or explanation about the evidence onwhich he is charged and to lead his defence — onthis state of law, a simple question arises inthe contextual facts. Has this been compliedwith? The answer however on the factual score isan emphatic “no”. 11.Considering the above said factors namely the complainant notappeared and marked documents, whereas the petitioner has markedthe documents to show that the charges are false, the enquiryofficer has rightly found that the charges against the petitionerare not proved. The disciplinary authority, while disagreeing withthe findings of the enquiry officer must record reasons on thebasis of evidence on record. If there is no proper evidence orthere is lacuna in the conduct of enquiry, the disciplinaryauthority must refer the enquiry back to the enquiry officer forfurther investigation. In this case, the first respondent, withoutdoing so chosen to issue the impugned second show cause notice,which approach is prohibited under Law. Followed AIR 1971 SC 1447K.R. Deb vs. Collector of Central Excise) wherein in Para No.12, itwas held thus:- 12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on theface of it, really provides for one inquiry butit may be possible if in a particular casethere has been no proper enquiry because someserious defect has crept into the inquiry orsome important witnesses were not available atthe time of the inquiry or were not examinedfor some other reason, the DisciplinaryAuthority may ask the Inquiry Officer to recordfurther evidence. But there is no provision inRule 15 for completely setting aside previousinquiries on the ground that the report of theInquiring Officer or Officers does not appealto the Disciplinary Authority. The DisciplinaryAuthority has enough powers to reconsider theevidence itself and come to its own conclusionunder Rule 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.In this case, the complainant has sent a communication tothe respondents 1 and 2 stating that she is not intending to pursuethe complaint, hence, at this stage, that too after the retirementof the petitioner, it may not be proper or useful to order theenquiry officer to record further evidence. 13.The principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous caremust be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies asmuch to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries heldunder the statutory rules. Followed(Nand Kishore Prasad vs.State of Bihar) AIR 1978 SC 1277 wherein the Honourable SupremeCourt, in Para No.19, 20 and 21, held thus:- 19. Before dealing with the contentionscanvassed, we may remind ourselves of theprinciples, in point, crystallised by judicialdecisions. The first of these principles isthat disciplinary proceedings before a domestictribunal are of a quasi-judicial character;therefore, the minimum requirement of the rulesof natural justice is that the tribunal shouldarrive at its conclusion on the basis of someevidence i.e. evidential material which withsome degree of definiteness points to the guiltof the delinquent in respect of the chargeagainst him. Suspicion cannot be allowed totake the place of proof even in domesticinquiries. As pointed out by this Court inUnion of India v. H.C. Goel “the principle thatin punishing the guilty scrupulous care must betaken to see that the innocent are notpunished, applies as much to regular criminaltrials as to disciplinary enquiries held underthe statutory rules”. 20. The second principle, which is acorollary from the first, is, that if thedisciplinary inquiry has been conducted fairlywithout bias or predilection, in accordancewith the relevant disciplinary rules and theConstitutional provisions, the order passed bysuch authority cannot be interfered with inproceedings under Article 226 of theConstitution, merely on the ground that it wasbased on evidence which would be insufficientfor conviction of the delinquent on the samecharge at a criminal trial. 21. The contentions in the instant caseresolve into the narrow issue: Whether theimpugned orders do not rest on any evidencewhatever, but merely on suspicions, conjecturesand surmises."14.As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, mere suspicioncannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domesticinquiries. Applying the said principle to the case on hand, it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ apparent that the impugned second show cause notice was issued bythe first respondent only on suspicion, hence, on that ground, it isliable to be set aside. 15.The petitioner retired on 31.03.2008. Even before thesaid date, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the firstrespondent on 29.02.2008. The first respondent is fully aware ofthe date of superannuation of the petitioner, but he kept mum eventhough he received the enquiry report submitted by the enquiryofficer prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. Evenafter retirement of the petitioner, the first respondent has nottaken any steps to proceed further, hence, the petitioner approachedthis Court and filed WP No. 9708 of 2008 seeking direction to thefirst respondent to pass final orders in the disciplinaryproceedings expeditiously and this Court also, by order dated22.04.2008 disposed of the said writ petition by directing therespondents to pass final orders within a period of four months.Thereafter only, the first respondent woke up and issued theimpugned second show cause notice. The above mentioned delay on thepart of the first respondent also certainly prejudiced the right ofthe petitioner.16.In view of the above said reasons, the impugned secondshow cause notice dated 03.06.2008 of the first respondent isquashed. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.The first respondent is directed to settle the retiral benefits tothe petitioner within a period of four months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarrshTo1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. R. Parthiban, Advocate. S.R.No.70368.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.70647. Order inW.P.No.16209 of 2008RSM (CO)GSK 19.12.2008.