Judgment :- The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in Pani.2 (2) 40810/2004 dated 21.06.2005 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as District Revenue Officer, conferring all the consequential benefits from the date of on which his junior was promoted. 2. The petitioner joined the Department as Junior Assistant on 17.08.1996 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant in 1973 and then, to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in 1982 and in the year 1993, he was promoted as Tahsildar. After his service for a period of more than five years, his next promotion to the post of Deputy Collector was made and his further promotion is to the post of District Revenue Officer. At the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was to retire on 28.02.2006; but, as on date, he is yet to be superannuated and he has not been allowed to retire from service. While so, a Charge Memo dated 21.06.2005 was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent calling him to submit his explanation. 3. The first charge levelled against him is that in respect of acquisition of 0.99.5 hectares of land in Resurvey No.20/92 for the purpose of construction of houses for Adi Dravidar community people, the price for the land was fixed at Rs.8,400/- per acre by the Special Tahsildar and on appeal by the land owner, a compensation of Rs.15,000/-per acre was fixed by the Tharapuram Sub Court. As per that order which forms part of the impugned Charge Memo, some of the persons who were aggrieved by the compensation have approached this Court by filing First Appeal No.932 of 1995 and in CMP No.7837 of 1995 dated 26.09.1995, notice was ordered by this Court; but no counter was filed by the petitioner though he had been in service from 25.03.1996 to 11.09.1996 and this has resulted in enhancement of compensation of Rs.30,000/-per acre, thereby leading to a loss of Rs.1,25,101/- to the Government. 4. 4. The second charge is that the petitioner has put the Government to a loss of Rs.1,27,823/- by his failure to make an appeal in the High Court challenging the order of the Tharapuram Sub-Court fixing the compensation of Rs.60,000/- per acre as against the compensation of Rs.17,391.30 fixed by the Special Tahsildar with regard to the land in S. No.1397/A1 measuring 0.43.0 hectare. 5. The third charge levelled against the petitioner is that, by his failure to file an appeal in the High Court challenging the order of the Tharapuram Sub-Court in which a compensation of Rs.80,000/- per acre was fixed as against the compensation of Rs.18,307/- as determined by the Special Tahsildar in connection with acquisition of land in Re-survey No.146/1 measuring 0.92.0 hectare, he has made the Government incur a loss of Rs.59.85 per day to be paid to the land owners. 6. Even though Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has admitted that the Charge Memo has been issued for the occurrence taken place in the year 1990, 1991 and 1992, he has contended that the petitioner was only for a short period from 25.03.1996 to 11.09.1996 and therefore, the petitioner has nothing to do with the appeal pending in the High Court as the point to be decided in the High Court is only the correctness or otherwise of the Labour Courts judgment in awarding compensation. He has further contended that the impugned Charge Memo has been issued without application of mind inasmuch as the second respondent who has passed the impugned order should have considered if at all there is any semblance of dereliction on the petitioner before framing charges. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that though the petitioner had requested for some of the records relevant to the charge, the second respondent has not considered his request and till date, no permission has been given even to peruse the records. Finally, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned Charge Memo has to be quashed and the writ petition allowed on the ground of inordinate delay of over twelve years in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 8. Finally, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned Charge Memo has to be quashed and the writ petition allowed on the ground of inordinate delay of over twelve years in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 8. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 30.11.2006 made by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos.30703, etc. of 2006 filed by similarly placed persons in which the learned Judge has considered all aspects of the matter and quashed the impugned proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay. He has further pointed out that the case on hand in which there is inordinate delay in issuing impugned proceedings is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board in which the impugned charge memo was quashed and petitioner was in fact permitted to draw the retirement benefit also. 9. On the other hand, Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, learned Government Advocate, has, on instruction, submitted that there is no counter filed in this writ petition and hence, the counter filed by the Government in earlier batch of writ petitions may be taken note of while deciding this case also as the petitioners case and the earlier cases are on same set of facts and charges. The learned Government Advocate has further contended that the reasons set out in the counter for the delay in initiation of proceedings are genuine as the pendency of the First Appeal before this court and its conclusion are the bases for initiating proceedings. Secondly, the Government Advocate has contended that there was no efforts on the part of the petitioner during the relevant period of time in filing counter and it has resulted in the huge enhancement of compensation and therefore, the Charge Memo under Section 17-B of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules have been issued. 10. I have given careful consideration to the arguments placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 11. It is to be noted that only Charge Memo has been issued by the second respondent and thereafter, there are several stages to be complied with in accordance with the rules. 10. I have given careful consideration to the arguments placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 11. It is to be noted that only Charge Memo has been issued by the second respondent and thereafter, there are several stages to be complied with in accordance with the rules. The procedural aspects of the matter would be the proper method to decide the case and as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent could have framed the charges at the appropriate time. The delay in initiating the proceedings on the part of the second respondent is of paramount consideration before this Court, taking note of the Supreme Courts decision relied on by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in which paragraph 14 reads as under: "...We are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the office concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellants should not be made to suffer." 12. In the case referred to above, for the incident that happened in 1975-76, the Charge Memo has been issued with an inordinate delay of over 12 years. In the instant case, for incidents which took place in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, the impugned Charge Memo has been issued on 21.06.2005. In the case referred to above, for the incident that happened in 1975-76, the Charge Memo has been issued with an inordinate delay of over 12 years. In the instant case, for incidents which took place in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, the impugned Charge Memo has been issued on 21.06.2005. Therefore, the delay caused in the issuance of Charge Memo is the paramount consideration and as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court also in its judgment reported in 2005 (5) CTC 380 in the matter of A. Obaidhullah vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 and another and also in a similar batch of writ petitions as already stated above. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the discussion made above and also considering the law laid down by Apex Court and which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Charge Memo issued with inordinate delay, I have no hesitation to quash the Charge Memo issued against the petitioner on the ground that it is hit by inordinate delay. Accordingly, the impugned Charge Memo dated 21.06.2005 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion and other benefits. In fine, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.