Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 17.10.2001 made in O.A.No.3880 of 1998, the Superintendent of Police, Salem and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Salem filed the above writ petition. 2. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, it is unnecessary to refer the factual matrix as stated in the affidavit. However, it is relevant to note that the first respondent herein was issued a charge memo, which reads as under. "Unbecoming of a Police Officer by allowing your wife Tmt. Gunaseeli in having indulged in unnecessary wordy quarrels with the neighbours in Armed Reserve line hut, Salem and also badly misused the provisions of the PCR Act in your favour along with your wife and thus paved way for disharmony, unrest and indiscipline in Armed Reserve lines, Salem." The said charge memo was questioned by the first respondent herein / applicant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considered the said charge memo along with other materials placed before it. It found that the charge memo would show that the same relates to alleged quarrel or statement made by his wife with the neighbours in the quarters allotted to Armed Reserve personnel and taking note of the fact that even the complaint said to have been given by the first respondent herein along with his wife under Protection of Civil Rights Act against the police constable Mayakannan was subsequently withdrawn, and came to a conclusion that there is no sufficient cause to pursue the above referred charge memo, quashed the same and allowed the petition filed by the first respondent. 3. The learned Government Advocate would contend that since the enquiry revealed that the complaint/telegram made by the first respondent's wife i.e., violation of Protection of Civil Rights Act is false, the Department is fully justified in initiating action against him. We are unable to accept the said contention. As rightly discussed and observed by the Tribunal, first of all, even according to the Department, the alleged quarrel was between the applicant's wife with her neighbours and the first respondent has nothing to do with the same. Further, a complaint was given by the first respondent and his wife against one Mayakannan, Police Constable, and the same was subsequently withdrawn. Further, a complaint was given by the first respondent and his wife against one Mayakannan, Police Constable, and the same was subsequently withdrawn. In such a circumstance, as rightly observed by the Tribunal that there is no cause to pursue the charge levelled against the first respondent herein, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and we do not find any valid ground for interference. 4. In addition to the same, it is to be noted that the Tribunal has set aside the charge memo even as early as on 17.10.2001, but the present writ petition has been filed only in the month of June, 2005. In the absence of proper explanation, we are not inclined to entertain the above writ petition both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. Hence, we are of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed; accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed.