Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the charge memo in Ref:22693/Sc1/1/2003 dated 07/04/2003 and to direct the Respondents to release the retirement benefits and full pension to the Petitioner within time limit. 2. It was reported that Petitioner then working as Senior Civil Surgeon, Government Dispensary, Todhunter Nagar, Saidapet while working as Tutor/Casualty Medical Officer, Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, during the period between May 96 and June 97 had signed medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.2,25,040/-for treatment of Tuberculosis to the Civilian Employees of Ordnance Department, Avadi, Chennai. The audit authorities of the Defence Department had suspected the genuineness of the cases and referred the matter to the Superintendent, Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, to verify the hospital documents, ascertain the facts of the case and intimate whether the said Medical Officer is authorized to undertake and provide such treatment. 3. During enquiry it was noticed that writ petitioner was never posted to Chest Clinic and he was working as Casualty Medical Officer only, and he has bogusly affixed the seal as Govt. Royapettah Hospital, Chest Clinic thereby allegedly committed dereliction of duty. The writ petitioner is alleged to have embossed the seal of Govt. Royapettah Hospital, Chennai and the round seal in addition to his regular designation seal, as the seal of Govt. Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, used for official purpose and thereby Petitioner is allegedly violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. Three charges were framed against the Petitioner by the Charge Memo dated 07.04.2003. 4. Petitioner has submitted his explanation. While the disciplinary proceedings was pending, the Petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the Charge Memo seeking to quash the same and to release the retiral benefits. Case of Petitioner is that the alleged act of embossing the seal was in the year 1996 and Charge Memo was issued against the Petitioner in the year 2003 nearly after a period of seven years and the Charge Memo is vitiated due to inordinate delay. Further case of Petitioner is that the 1st Respondent has been protracting the disciplinary proceedings and as such the Charge Memo is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for Petitioner Mr.M.Kamalanathan, has contended that there had been a long delay in instituting the deparmental proceedings and it is not fair to conduct enquiry after inordinate delay. Further case of Petitioner is that the 1st Respondent has been protracting the disciplinary proceedings and as such the Charge Memo is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for Petitioner Mr.M.Kamalanathan, has contended that there had been a long delay in instituting the deparmental proceedings and it is not fair to conduct enquiry after inordinate delay. In 2000 (III) CTC 351 , B.Loganathan vs. The Union of India rep. By the Secretary to Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Department of Local Administration, Pondicherry and another, it was contended that unexplained and inordinate delay constitute denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and there is violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the Charge Memo is liable to be quashed. 5. Heard Mr. N. Senthilkumar, Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. 6. In 2000 (III) CTC 351 , B. Loganathan vs. The Union of India rep. By the Secretary to Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Department of Local Administration, Pondicherry and another, the Charge Memo was issued in 1997 for the charges relating to the period 1982 based on vigilance report during 1993. The delay between 1982 and 1993 was not explained. Under such circumstances the charge memo was quashed on the ground that there was unexplained and inordinate delay. Justice P. Sathasivam (as His Lordship then was) has quashed the Charge Memo on the ground that inordinate delay would constitute denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and it would violate principles of natural justice. 7. Whether on the ground of delay, the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated, is the question to be examined in each case. Even in B. Loganathan case, reference was made to State of Andhra Pradesh Vs N. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1998 S.C.1833 regarding delay in taking Departmental action. In the said decision Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." 8. It is thus clear that essence of the matter is that Court has to take into consideration of relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine whether disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated on the ground of delay. 9. In the present case, the Petitioner has attained age of superannuation on 310. It is thus clear that essence of the matter is that Court has to take into consideration of relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine whether disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated on the ground of delay. 9. In the present case, the Petitioner has attained age of superannuation on 310. 2003, though the alleged Act of misconduct was during the period 1996-97, based upon the communication from Defence Department, the matter was enquired into, even on 27.01.1998, the Respondents sent the proceedings in Ref.No.12794/E1/97 to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to explain the reasons for signing the reimbursement bill for such huge amounts for treatment of Tuberculosis patients, the staff of Ordnance Depot, Avadi. Thereafter the Petitioner had sent a letter offering his explanation and thereafter the matter was enquired. Again there was letter of correspondence, for which the Petitioner has sent legal notice through his counsel on 210. 2002. It was thereafter the Charge Memo was issued on 07.04.2003. It cannot be said that there was inordinate delay which resulted in denial of opportunity to the Petitioner in defending himself. As pointed out earlier the delay cannot be a ground for quashing the Charge Memo. 10. Petitioner has attained age of superannuation on 31.01.2003, more than nearly Rs.10-15 lakhs was said to be payable to the Petitioner as retiral benefits. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the letter dated 29.04.2008, issued by the Secretary to the Government Health and Welfare Department stating that the charges framed against the Petitioner are proved and indicating proposed punishment of cut of Rs.1000/-per month for a period of 2 years. The relevant points of the letter reads as under: "4. The Government have examined the charges framed against your, your defence statement, findings of the inquiry Officer and your further representation carefully and independently with connected records and held all the three charges framed against you as proved. For the proven charges, the Government have arrived at a provisional decision to impose the punishment of pension cut of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) per months for a period of two years from the pension payable to you. 5. For the proven charges, the Government have arrived at a provisional decision to impose the punishment of pension cut of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) per months for a period of two years from the pension payable to you. 5. In this connection, your attention is invited to rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and you are directed to submit you reply specifically as to whether you accept or not the proposed punishment of pension cut mentioned in para 4. above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which it will be construed that you have no explanation to offer and the case will be proceeded further as per the rules in force." In the above letter Petitioner has been called upon to give his explanation as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. The Petitioner is said to have responded to the above letter. 11. Assuming the proposed punishment is to be imposed upon the Petitioner the cut in pension will be only Rs.24,000/-(1000X12X2) while so the Respondents are not justified in withholding the entire retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner. 12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: "The Respondents are directed to disburse all the retiral benefits to the writ petitioner withholding Rs.24,000/- as per the proposed punishment indicated in the letter dated 29.04.2008. "The retiral benefits shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "The Respondents are further directed to process all pension papers within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "The Respondents are directed to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "It is open to the Petitioner to challenge the final order of punishment imposed if he is so advised. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.