Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Proceedings O.Na. 2/54793/99 dated 6. 2000 on the ground of delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) During the year 1996, Petitioner while working as Assistant Director at Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai-28 committed certain irregularities in nomination. Charges have been framed against the Petitioner for the irregularities committed by him in the nomination of Post Graduate Teacher (History) at Ethiraj College, Chennai-8 and Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) at Lady Sivasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Chennai. (ii) Irregularities came to light on Petition from one Sebastain, Nagercoil. Disciplinary action was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and Charge Memo was issued in O.Na.2/54793/99 dated 6. 2000. Government directed the Commissioner for Disciplinary proceedings to enquire him to the substantiated allegations against the Petitioner based on the report of Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. (iii) Petitioner had filed O.A.No.3273/2003 in which Tribunal has given direction to pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Opinion of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has been drawn by the Government to finalise the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. (iv) Alleging non-compliance of time frame ordered by the TAT and delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Charge Memo and the Proceedings thereon on the ground of delay. 3. Stating that enquiry proceedings has been completed and that two charges levelled against the Petitioner are held proved and Government is awaiting the opinion of TNPSC, Respondents have filed their counter-statement. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Mr.S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that disciplinary proceedings persisted over long period and that inspite of direction by the Tribunal, Respondents have not chosen to pass final orders and the delay vitiates enquiry proceedings. 6. Submitting that the delay would vitiate the enquiry proceedings, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon P.V.Mahadevans case [2005 (4) CTC 403]. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that non-compliance of any direction of the court would vitiate the enquiry proceedings. 6. Submitting that the delay would vitiate the enquiry proceedings, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon P.V.Mahadevans case [2005 (4) CTC 403]. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that non-compliance of any direction of the court would vitiate the enquiry proceedings. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon (2008) 4 MLJ 424 [Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, New Delhi vs. A.Kannan and another]. I do not propose to go into merits of the contention on the question of delay or on the question of non-compliance of direction of the Administrative Tribunal. Suffice to note, it is open to the Petitioner to raise those points in an appropriate proceedings after the final orders are passed. 7. From the averments in the counter-affidavit and from the submissions of the learned AGP (Writs), it comes to be known that Commissioner of disciplinary proceedings had completed the enquiry and held that two Charges against the Petitioner are proved. Petitioner had also submitted his explanation for the report. Government has also sought for opinion of TNPSC in this regard. It is stated that in the mean while, because of interim stay granted in this Writ Petition, Government could not pass final orders. 8. Having regard to the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.