Judgment :- (PRAYER IN W.P.No.7693 of 1996: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in charge memo No.AEE/O&M/J/T/ARI/JA - 18/95 dated 30.09.1995 and the consequential enquiry notice sent by the 3rd respondent in Memo No.O/OEE/K.10/95-95 K.50/96 dated 08.04.1996. PRAYER IN W.P.No.9266 of 1998: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the suspension order passed by the 1st respondent bearing Memo No.677/Adm.4/A1/FDP/98 dated 12.05.1998 culminating in the Charge memo issued by the 1st respondent bearing Memo No.694/Adm.4/A1/FDP/98 dated 4/10.06.1998. PRAYER IN W.P.No.23293 of 2001: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the Second respondent bearing No.F/M/vd; braw;bghwpahsh;-,af;fYk;-fhj;jYk;-,yhy;Fo-ep/gp/-ep/c/1-nfh-f/K/-o/1533-2001 dated Nil-10-2001/3-11-2001. PRAYER IN W.P.No.8578 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent pertainent to the Memo No.008/AAdo/ADM.I/A.1/F/Suspension/2006 dated 30.01.2006 and quash the same and also directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire with all retirement benefits. ) Common Order: In all these writ petitions, the petitioner is one of the same and therefore a common order is passed. 2. The writ petitioner in all these writ petitions joined as a Workman under the second respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 10.07.1967 at Pudukottai. He was subsequently promoted as a Construction Foreman in 1970 and transferred to Senthurai. He was promoted in 1984 as Foreman Grade II and posted to Ariyalur. The third respondent has transferred the petitioner in June 1995 from Ariyalur to T.Palur which was subsequently withdrew on 19.06.1995. 3. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has developed inimical attitude towards the petitioner and in fact when he was transferred, he filed a writ petitioner in W.P.16824 of 1995 before this court by impleading the petitioner as third respondent eventhough the petitioner has nothing to do with his transfer. It was at the instances of the third respondent, the charge memo dated 30.09.1995 passed by the fourth respondent was served on the petitioner on 03.11.1995. It was at the instances of the third respondent, the charge memo dated 30.09.1995 passed by the fourth respondent was served on the petitioner on 03.11.1995. It was based on the charge memo the third respondent being the Executive Engineer has issued a memo dated 08.04.1996 calling upon the petitioner to appear for the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. It is the said charge memo as also the subsequent enquiry notice which are impugned in these writ petitions. In W.P.No.7693 of 1996 the charges framed against the petitioner which are challenged are as follows: 1) In respect of the articles supplied by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for its work, he has received various amounts on 01.02.1993, 06.03.1995, 07.03.1995 and 15.03.1995 by stating that he has purchased the same from various shops which is a misconduct under standing order No.30-IV and 30-V. 2) He has demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- from Thir.A.Kannan a contract employee of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Valaja Town stating that the same has to be paid to the officers of the Department thereby bringing disrepute to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which is a delinquency punishable as per standing order No.30-XX and III. 4. The impugned charge memo is challenged merely on the ground that it was at the instance of the third respondent the order has been passed which is evident from the fact that the third respondent has issued a consequential enquiry notice and even though the impugned charge memo was dated 30.09.1995, the same was served on the petitioner only on 03.11.1995. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is with mala fide intention the impugned charge memo has been framed. 5. Even though the respondents have not filed the counter affidavit in this writ petition Mr.M.Vaithiyanathan learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has made his submission. 6. Mr.V.Ragupathy learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contended that the impugned charge memo dated 30.09.1995 relates to an alleged purchase which taken place on 01.02.1993, 06.03.1995, 07.03.1995 and 15.03.1995, therefore according to him in respect of an incident took place in 1993 a charge is framed in 1995 and therefore it should be taken as a belated one and at this point of time the petitioner cannot be expected to give a proper reply and defend himself from the charges. 7. 7. That apart, in respect of the second charge the learned counsel would submit that the charge is framed inasmuch as it has not substantiated with any material and therefore according to the petitioner the charge has to be set aside. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is absolutely no delay in respect of the charge memo is framed in this case, since the charge framed in 1995 also relates to the instance which took place in 1995. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the second charge the same is vague, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner without even giving explanation to the charges cannot raise the same issue. That apart according to him the necessary materials will be submitted at the time of enquiry. While admitting this writ petition there was an order of stay granted by this court which continue. 9. In respect of W.P.No.9266 of 1998 the petitioner challenges the order of the suspension passed against the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer the first respondent dated 12.05.1998 against the petitioner while he was working as a Foreman Grade I in Trichirapalli and the subsequent charge memo dated 4/10 6/1998 framed by the first respondent. The impugned charge memo which contains the charges against the petitioner as follows: "That the said K.Muthukrishnan, Foreman I Grade/O&M/Thelur has obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- for construction of house situated at Plot in S.F.No.279/5B, Rajaji Nagar, Sendurai Road, Ariyalur Town Panchayat, Ariyalur from the Board with Plinth area of 72.29 sq.m.only that too for ground floor alone. But he has constructed the house with ground and first floor totalling 119.47 sq.m. at a total cost of Rs.1,15,000/-. The difference amount of Rs.65,000/- is illegally earned by him. Thus he has violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988, and also a mis-conduct under Standing order 30(IV) applicable for non-clerical workmen." 10. The petitioner has submi