Judgment :- The petitioner herein was appointed as Staff Nurse on 10. 1974. Thereafter in the year 1999, she was transferred to Siddha Wing from the parent department and posted at District Siddha Hospital, Erode wherein she joined the duty on 15.07.1999. She worked in the said hospital till 27.09.2007. By an order dated 210. 2007, she was transferred to the parent department. 2. While the petitioner was working at District Siddha Hospital, Erode, a complaint was made against her by the Deputy Medical Officer Mr.T.Muthukrishnan on the ground that the petitioner remained absent for the night duty on 01.03.2006. Based on the above said complaint, a show cause notice dated 10.03.2006 was issued by the District Siddha Hospital, Erode and not satisfied with her reply, final order was passed on 21.04.2006 wherein the petitioner was let off with warning. It is also seen that the said T.Muthukrishnan also given a complaint in Cr.No.349 of 2007 against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. However the said complaint was closed as mistake of fact.. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to the parent department namely, the second respondent. A certificate was also issued by the District Siddha Medical Officer on 18.09.2008 stating that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was due to retire on 310. 2008. At that point of time, 1st Respondent issued a charge memo on 30.9.2008 on the ground that the petitioner while he was working at District Siddha Hospital, Erode on 01.03.2006 did not report for night duty. The said proceedings has been challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that the said issue has already been closed and therefore, there cannot be a double jeopardy against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that as much as on the same allegation, an order dated 24. 2006 has been passed, the respondent cannot permitted to revive the very same allegation once again. It is further submitted that even perusal of charge memo would show that the petitioner was absent only for night duty on 01.03.2006. Further, the charge memo has been issued nearly after 2½ years, at the verge of retirement of the petitioner. As such, the learned counsel or the petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Further, the charge memo has been issued nearly after 2½ years, at the verge of retirement of the petitioner. As such, the learned counsel or the petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents the authority who issued the first charge memo has no competence to pass any orders on any complaint received against any of he subordinates. Therefore, the second charge memo is issued by the first respondent. According to the learned Government Advocate since the earlier charge memo was issued by the incompetent authority, the submission charge memo issued by the authority competent cannot be challenged on that ground. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has put in unblemished service. She has no prior antecedents during her service. It is also not in dispute that an order came to be passed on 21.04.2006 against the very same charges that she was absent for the night duty on 01.03.2006. It is also not in dispute the order passed on 21.04.2006 has not been quashed or set aside. Thereafter, the present impugned order, namely charge memo has been issued, at the instance of a person, who was her immediate superior namely Mr.T.Muthukrishnan. Even in the counter affidavit it is specifically stated that the charge memo has been issued at the instance of the said person. It is also not in dispute that the complaint given by the said person has been closed "as a mistake of fact". Therefore, it is clear that the impugned charge memo has not been initiated by the first respondent on his own, but only at the instance of the said T. Muthukrishnan. Even though this Honble Court shall not go into merits of the charges, in the peculiar circumstances, a mere reading of the said charge would show that it is a not very serious one, and probably that is the reason why the first respondent has not chosen to initiate action at the earlier point of time. It has not been stated in the counter affidavit that the order passed by the District Siddha Medical Officer, Erode on 21.04.2006 has not been sent to the respondent herein and the same has been passed without the knowledge of the 1st Respondent. It has not been stated in the counter affidavit that the order passed by the District Siddha Medical Officer, Erode on 21.04.2006 has not been sent to the respondent herein and the same has been passed without the knowledge of the 1st Respondent. Moreover, it is to be seen in the present case, that the petitioner was allowed to continue to work under Siddha Department even after the first charge memo. 6. Further, it is to be seen that the order passed on 21.04.2006 has neither been set aside nor held to be one passed without jurisdiction. There is also no proper explanation for not initiating proceedings earlier by the first respondent. 7. Another important fact as seen from the records is that when the petitioner was due to retire on 310. 2008, charge memo has been issued on 30.09.2008 and served to the petitioner on 10. 2008 which is about 25 days prior to the retirement. Even on 18.09.2008, the District Siddha Medical Officer gave a letter stating that the petitioner did not have any disciplinary proceedings pending against her. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts, this court is of the opinion that in the present case, the charge memo framed by the first respondent will have to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the pendency of the charges, pensionary benefits due to the petitioner has not been granted. Hence taking into consideration the above said submission, the respondents are directed to grant the pensionery benefits due to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.