Judgment : By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. In a preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has challenged three proceedings in this writ petition viz., (i) charge memo dated 5. 2008; (ii) suspension order dated 310. 2007; and (iii) order not permitting to retire from service dated 310. 2007, he restricted the challenges to the charge memo alone in this writ petition and in respect of two other proceedings viz., suspension order and order not permitting to retire from service, the learned counsel requests liberty to challenge those two proceedings separately. This Court, while granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge those two proceedings separately, this writ petition in respect of challenge to the charge memo dated 5. 2008 alone is taken up for consideration. 3. The brief facts relevant for consideration of this case are as follows:- .(i) While the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at Athur from 7. 1999 to 112. 1999, the Board of Management, Arignar Anna Co-operative Housing Society, Athur, with a view to purchase the landed property in Survey Nos. 463/4A and 463/5A Nehru Nagar, North Udayarpalayam, Athur, requested him to furnish guideline value of the said property. The Firka Revenue Inspector contacted the Sub-Registrar’s Office for this purpose. As there was no guideline value fixed for the above lands, it has been marked as “Zero” and hence, the Sub-Registrar furnished the guideline value of the adjoining land as Rs.251/- per sq.ft for being adopted to the above said property. Based on the above letter of the Sub-Registrar, the Firka Revenue Inspector obtained a routine statement from the petitioner with regard to guideline value of the property and then had sent a report to the then Tahsildar, Athur, with his recommendations accordingly. On the basis of proposals submitted by the petitioner and the Revenue Inspector, the then Tahsildar, Attur has issued a certificate that the land value of the above said land is Rs.251/- per sq.ft. as per the guideline value issued by the Sub-Registrar, Attur as per proceeding dated 17. 1999. The Tahsildar furnished a certificate for fixing the guideline value at Rs.251/-, on the basis of the report of the Firka Revenue Inspector to the Co-operative Society. as per the guideline value issued by the Sub-Registrar, Attur as per proceeding dated 17. 1999. The Tahsildar furnished a certificate for fixing the guideline value at Rs.251/-, on the basis of the report of the Firka Revenue Inspector to the Co-operative Society. Instead of submitting a proposal to the District Collector, who is the Competent Authority, for fixing guideline value to the above lands, the Tahsildar himself issued the certificate, which resulted in the purchase of the said landed property at Rs.251/- per sq.ft. by the Co-operative Society. Therefore, the petitioner is not the person responsible for fixing the guideline value and the Tahsildar alone, who ought to have obtained orders from the District Collector has failed to do so and the said Tahsildar has been permitted to retire on 30.4.2004, without any action being taken against him and the Firka Revenue Inspector has also been included in the panel for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar for 2007. .(ii) According to the petitioner, he has been singled out and the proceedings under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A.) Rules ought to have been conducted against the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and the petitioner/Village Administrative Officer of Revenue Department and Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Department and joint enquiry ought to have been conducted for the alleged occurrence in the year 1997. But, action has been initiated against the petitioner after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 8 years in violation of the principles laid down in this regard. (iii) A suspension order was issued and another order not permitting to retire has been issued on the date of superannuation on 310. 2007 and also a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated on 5. 2008 by issuing a charge sheet, after the lapse of more than six months thereafter, with regard to the alleged act of misconduct related to the year 1999. The said charge memo has been questioned by the petitioner and hence, this petition. 4. The respondents have filed counter and in the counter it is stated as follows:- (i) The petitioner had joined as Village Administrative Officer on 9. 1982 and was in service till 310. 2007. While he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Athur Town from 7. 1999 to 112. 4. The respondents have filed counter and in the counter it is stated as follows:- (i) The petitioner had joined as Village Administrative Officer on 9. 1982 and was in service till 310. 2007. While he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Athur Town from 7. 1999 to 112. 1999, in respect of the property in question in S.Nos.463/4A and 463/5A, Nehru Nagar, Attur Town, a guideline value has been sought for by fixing the market value of the above said lands. The petition made by Arignar Anna Co-operative Housing Society Limited was sent to the Revenue Inspector for fixing the market value and therefore, he collected certain information from the Sub-Registrar’s Officer after scrutinizing suitable sale may be taken by the competent authority considering the assessments. The petitioner wantonly discarded all the sales and gave statement that the value of the land may be fixed as Rs.251/- per sq.ft. as per the guideline value adopted by the Sub-Registrar Office. The petitioner and formerly Revenue Inspector, Athur, together submitted the proposals to the Tahsildar, Athur, for fixing the land value. On the basis of the proposal, the then Tahsildar, Athur, has issued the certificate that the land value of the above said land is Rs.251/-per sq.ft. as per the guideline value adopted by the Sub-Registrar office, without considering the sales occurred in the village. On the request of V & AC, Salem, the Collector, Salem, had fixed the land value as Rs.127/- per sq. ft. for the above said lands in proceedings dated 22. 2005. The above land value certificate issued by the then Tahsildar lead to the loss of Rs.82,17,728/- to the Arignar Anna Co-op. Housing Society, Attur. Hence, the proposal submitted by the petitioner led to the loss of the above amount to the Housing Society and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings dated 310. 2007 placed the petitioner under suspension on the afternoon of 310. 2007 for wantonly making a false report and was responsible for causing loss to the Co-operative Society. However, the petitioner was retained in service under Fundamental Rule 56(1) (c). .(ii) The Government issued an order to take departmental action on 212. 2007 and a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Rule was drafted and sent to the Directorate of Vigilance for its approval on 12. 2008. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has approved the charge memo on 5. 2008. .(ii) The Government issued an order to take departmental action on 212. 2007 and a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Rule was drafted and sent to the Directorate of Vigilance for its approval on 12. 2008. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has approved the charge memo on 5. 2008. The approved charge memos under Rule 17(b) charges framed against the petitioner and formerly Revenue Inspector as per the proceedings dated 5. 2008. Hence, there is no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents and there is no infirmity regarding the charges framed against the petitioner. A detailed enquiry dated 2. 2008 was against one R. Naliathambi, formerly Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai and others. (iii) It is also stated in the counter that the Government in G.O.Ms. No.144 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 6. 2007 has stated that the disciplinary cases initiated on the basis of V & AC report where the final orders could not be passed before three months from the date of retirement, the disciplinary authority should take a decision to place him under suspension well in advance viz., prior to the date of retirement of the Government Servant and not on the date of retirement. The Government has given a direction to take suitable decision against the petitioner’s retirement adopting the guidelines and principles laid down in the Government Order. As per the directions of the Government, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Athur, passed the orders of suspension and not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and retained him in service under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c) dated 310. 2007. The petitioner has not submitted his explanation for the charges framed against him till date and hence, the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Administration to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in stipulated time. The Vigilance Commissioner is also pressing the Administration to finalise the disciplinary proceedings and hence, the enquiry ordered by the Administration is not illegal. 5. I have heard Mr. M. Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 6. The Vigilance Commissioner is also pressing the Administration to finalise the disciplinary proceedings and hence, the enquiry ordered by the Administration is not illegal. 5. I have heard Mr. M. Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 6. A primary contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while officials of three department were involved in the matter viz., the Village Administrative Officer, Firka Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar of Revenue Department and Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Department, action should have been initiated against all of them and a joint enquiry should have been conducted under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A.) Rules and therefore, for violating Rule 9-A, the impugned charge memo dated 5. 2008 is unsustainable. 7. This question has been answered by the learned Additional Government Pleader by producing a copy of the proceedings of the Department of Co-operation, Food and consumer Protection Department dated 210. 2008, wherein, it is stated that as per Rule 9A of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules when the officials involved in the allegation are more than one department then the competent authority to frame the charges is only the appropriate Government. 8. On a perusal of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner joined in service as Village Administrative Officer on 9. 1982 and he had been placed under suspension by the Revenue Department on 310. 2007 and also a charge memo was issued against him and one N. Kumar formerly Revenue Inspector, Atttur, on 5. 2008. It is also seen that a detailed enquiry dated 2. 2008 was registered against one R. Nallathambi, formerly Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai and others. The matter has been taken up by the V & AC, Salem for investigation and they requested to fix the land value for the above land to the Collector, Salem. 2008. It is also seen that a detailed enquiry dated 2. 2008 was registered against one R. Nallathambi, formerly Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai and others. The matter has been taken up by the V & AC, Salem for investigation and they requested to fix the land value for the above land to the Collector, Salem. Therefore, since the officials involved in the commission of the offence are more than from one department, viz., the petitioner Village Administrative officer, Firka Revenue inspector as well as Tahsildar concerned of the Revenue Department and Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Co-operative Department, as per the Government Orders and as per Rule 9-A of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the competent authority to frame the charges and initiate action is only the appropriate Government and not the concerned officer of that Department alone. Now, the Department of Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department has come out with a specific plea that if the officials involved in an allegation are more than from one department, then the competent authority to frame the charges and initiate action is only the appropriate Government and not the concerned Officers of that Department alone. 9. In this case, admittedly, since the officials involved in the commission of the offence are more than from one department viz., Petitioner/Village, Administrative Officer, Firka Revenue Inspector as well as Tahsildar concerned of the Revenue Department and Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Co-operative Department, the charges framed by the Authority concerned cannot be sustained as the same could be framed only by the appropriate Government. In that view of the matter, the charge memo dated 5. 2008 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the appropriate authority to have a re-look on the whole issue for taking a fresh decision. No costs.