Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is one and the same in both the writ petitions. The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer in Poosalakudi village, Devakottai Taluk, and his superannuation was on 312. 2005 and he was placed under suspension on 212. 2005, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, in Roc No.A2/11996/2005, dated 212. 2005 and charges were framed against him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1953. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him and the Special Tahsildar (Distress Relief Scheme), Devakottai, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and though, notices were sent by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner appeared on that date, no enquiry was conducted and as the petitioner was not allowed to retire and enquiry was also not conducted and hence, he filed W.P.No.11105 of 2006, on the file of this Court, seeking direction to complete the enquiry within a specific date and this Court has passed an order, dated 112. 2006 directed the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass final orders on or before 30.05.2007. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and sent his report wherein he has stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The 2nd respondent instead of dropping the charges, forwarded the letter to the first respondent seeking instructions and also passed the order, dated 30.05.2007 stating that as per the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 25.05.2007, the petitioner is exempted from all the charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, initiated pursuant to the proceedings, dated 30.12.2005. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, he is deemed under temporary suspension as per the Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c). The petitioner originally challenged the said order, dated 30.05.2007 and latter, amended the prayer to quash a portion of the order relating to keep the petitioner under continued suspension under Fundamental Rule 56(1) (c) and direct the respondents to disburse all the pensionary benefits within a specified period. 3. The petitioner originally challenged the said order, dated 30.05.2007 and latter, amended the prayer to quash a portion of the order relating to keep the petitioner under continued suspension under Fundamental Rule 56(1) (c) and direct the respondents to disburse all the pensionary benefits within a specified period. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter in W.P.(MD)No.8998 of 2007 admitting that all the charges framed against the petitioner were exempted and the 2nd respondent is a Competent Authority to take action and 12 officials, including two from other Departments were involved for the irregular assessment of house sites. Hence, it is necessary that the petitioner should be kept in service till the enquiry is completed in the Department. It is further stated that as the enquiry is pending, the petitioner cannot be allowed to retire from his service in view of Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules as the charges are pending against the petitioner. It is further stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were exempted and the report of the Enquiry Officer is also null and void. It is also stated that 12 officials are involved in the matter of irregular allotment of house sites in Devakottai and the Secretary of the Revenue Department, is the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the accused Officers and the disciplinary proceedings against the accused Officers has not been concluded and hence, it is necessary to place the petitioner under suspension till the disposal of the case. The charges levelled against the petitioner was exempted as the charges were not framed by the Competent Authority and the charges framed against the petitioner are not dropped and a proposal has been sent to the Secretary Revenue Department, in Roc No.A3/5239/05, dated 30.10.2006 for framing charges against the officials involved in that case and the Secretary to Government, who is the Competent Authority will issue the charge memo to the official concerned and as grave charges are pending against the petitioner, he was placed under continued suspension as per Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). Thereafter, the District Collector, Sivagangai, framed fresh charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1953, on the same set of facts, after deleting certain allegations and a revised charges memo was issued, dated 21.02.2009 in respect of delinquency that took place in the year 1995. Thereafter, the District Collector, Sivagangai, framed fresh charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1953, on the same set of facts, after deleting certain allegations and a revised charges memo was issued, dated 21.02.2009 in respect of delinquency that took place in the year 1995. As the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, has passed an order on 30.05.2007 exempting the petitioner from the charges levelled against him in respect of the charge memo, dated 21.02.2009, the second charge memo on the same set of facts cannot be maintainable and after 14 years, fresh charge memo cannot be framed against the petitioner and on those grounds, the petitioner challenged the charge memo framed under 17(b)of the said Rule, dated 212. 2009 by filing writ petition W.P.No.2093 of 2009. 4. Therespondents did not file any counter in W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009. 5. As the parties are one and the same and the relief prayed in W.P.(MD)No.8998 of 2007 and the consequential relief is prayed in W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009, with the consent of both parties, both the writ petitions were heard together. 6. Mr.S.Visvalingam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent having exempted the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline an Appeal) Rules, ought not have kept the petitioner in prolonged suspension by invoking the Fundamental Rule 56 (1)(c). 7. Hefurther submitted that the delinquency had taken place in the year 1995 and after a lapse of nearly 14 years, the second charge memo was issued on the same set of facts and hence, the charge memo, dated 21.02.2009, which is challenged in the W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009 is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that it is also admitted by the respondents that the allotment of house sites were also cancelled subsequently by the Government and hence, there was no pecuniary loss to the Government and hence, the charges cannot be levelled against the petitioner stating that by recommending allotment of house plots he caused monetary loss of Rs.59,869/-to the Government. 8. 8. Mr.S.Visvalingam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer and he has no role to play in the allotment of house sites and the allotment was made by the higher officials and as per charges levelled against the petitioner, by the proceedings, dated 30.12.2005, it was stated that while allotting house sites to 46 persons, against the rules the petitioner received Rs.6,925/- towards value of the land and Rs.2,000/- towards office expenses for getting the allotment to one Sivakumar and similarly, he also received a sum of Rs.6,000/-from one Mookaiya for getting allotment and Rs.5,000/- from one Chellammal. Therefore, as per the earlier charges levelled against him, it was made clear that he has no role to play in the allotment of house sites and he was charge sheeted for the receipt of money from those allottees promising them to get the allotment and those charges were dropped and hence, the subsequent charges levelled against him, as per the proceedings, dated 21.02.2009 that he caused financial loss of Rs.59,869/- to the Government by allotting house sites to 24 persons against the rules and he recommended for the allotment of house sites to those persons are not maintainable. 9. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per the proceedings, dated 30.05.1997, charges framed against the petitioners were empted, but the enquiry was kept pending and therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per the Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c) and it is permissible under law and the same cannot be challenged. He further submitted that after further enquiry, it was found that the petitioner recommended for the allotment of house sites to 24 persons and those persons are not eligible to get the said house plots and as the petitioner has recommended those allotments against the rules, fresh charges were levelled against him and hence, the charges cannot be quashed. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the counsels. 11. In my opinion, if the contention of the petitioner to quash the charges memo, dated 21.02.2009, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009 if considered, that decision will be binding on the other writ petition viz.,W.P(MD)No.8998 of 2007. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the counsels. 11. In my opinion, if the contention of the petitioner to quash the charges memo, dated 21.02.2009, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009 if considered, that decision will be binding on the other writ petition viz.,W.P(MD)No.8998 of 2007. It is admitted that enquiry was conducted on the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner originally in the year 2005 and it was also stated by the respondents that there was oral and documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner had received a bribe for recommending allotment of house sites to the persons, who are not eligible to get allotment. It is admitted that the charges framed against the petitioner were exempted as per the direction of the District Collector, Sivagangai. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am not able to understand the implication of the order passed, dated 30.05.2007, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)No.8998 of 2007. It is stated in the said order that the charges levelled against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was exempted. Nevertheless, as departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension as per the Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c), after exempting the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. It is no-doubt true that a Government servant can be kept under suspension on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry. 13. As per Rule 56(1) of the Fundamental Rule, “a Government servant shall not retain in service after the age of superannuation and as per 56(1)(c), a Government servant, who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct or against whom an enquiry into grave charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct is pending or against whom an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending or against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial shall not be permitted by the appointing authority to retire on his reaching the date of retirement, but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charges of misconduct is concluded and or a final order passed thereon by the competent authority or by any higher authority.” 14. In this case, it is admitted by the respondents that the charges levelled against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) were exempted and therefore, after the grant of exemption from those charges, for which the petitioner was placed under suspension he cannot be kept under suspension on the ground that enquiry is pending. 15. According to me, the charges were levelled against the petitioner under 17(b) originally on the basis of the enquiry and according to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges were not proved and that may be the reason for exempting the petitioner from those charges. Therefore, once the charges levelled against a Government servant on the basis of the enquiry and latter when the Government exempted the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, it cannot be contended by the Government that even after granting exemption, the enquiry is pending against a Government servant and therefore, he can be placed under suspension under Rule 56(1)(c). 16. In other words, unless the Government initiated fresh enquiry against the Government Servant, the Government Servant can not be kept under suspension on the basis of the enquiry initiated earlier, which is also culminated in the framing of charges and latter the Government servant was also exempted from those charges . Hence, after granting exemption from the charges the petitioner cannot be suspended under Rule 56(1)(c). 17. Further, having regard to the decision taken by me, in W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009, the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension by invoking Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). Admittedly, the delinquency had taken place in the year 1995 and only in the year 2005, charges were levelled against the petitioner as if the petitioner had received a bribe for allotting house sites to three persons and at that time, there was no whisper that the house plots were allotted on the recommendation of the petitioner. Latter, it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and therefore, those charges were exempted which means that the petitioner was discharged from all the charges. Thereafter, another charges were levelled against the petitioner, by the impugned order in W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009 as if the petitioner recommended house sites to 24 persons, who are not eligible to get the allotment. Thereafter, another charges were levelled against the petitioner, by the impugned order in W.P.(MD)No.2093 of 2009 as if the petitioner recommended house sites to 24 persons, who are not eligible to get the allotment. As already submitted by the petitioner that he was working as Village Administrative Officer and the allotment of house sites were made only by the respondents 1 to 3. Of course, the petitioner might have been asked to verify about the eligibility of the persons, to whom the allotment was made, but the petitioner was not discharging authority and even assuming that the petitioner has recommended the allotment of house sites to those persons, who are not eligible, in the absence of any proceedings taken against the persons, who passed the order of allotment, the petitioner cannot be charge-sheeted for the same. 18. It is further admitted that the Government has cancelled all the allotment of house sites and hence, there is no loss to the Government as claimed by the respondents in the charges. Therefore, having regard to the fact that in the initial stage, no action was taken against the petitioner for recommending allotment of sites to twenty four persons and action was taken for having received a bribe from three persons for allotting house sites to them and latter, the petitioner was exempted from the charges, the respondents are not entitled to initiate further proceedings on the same set of facts as if the petitioner has recommended the allotment of houses to 24 persons and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the Government. 19. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the delinquency admittedly had taken place in the year 1995, but no action was taken for 10 years and after a lapse of 10 years, charges were framed and that was exempted latter. Thereafter, another charge was levelled after a lapse of 14 years on the same set of facts. Therefore, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court and our High Courts that when the charges were levelled against a Government servant after a lapse of 10 or 15 years, those charges are liable to be quashed and the Government servant cannot be kept under threat of suspension for a prolonged period. In this case, a Government servant was bound to retire on 312. In this case, a Government servant was bound to retire on 312. 2005 on attaining superannuation and on 29.09.2005, charges were framed against him and he was placed under suspension in respect of delinquency that had taken place in the year 1995. Latter, those charges were also exempted. Therefore, the respondents should not have proceeded against a Government servant after a lapse of 14 years in respect of certain alleged misconduct on the eve of his retirement. 120. It has been held by our Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2005(4) CTC 403, in the case of P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, referred the case, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another, 1990 Supp SCC 738, “an O.A. was filed by the officer concerned against initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings and issue of charge-sheet on April, 22, 1987 in respect of certain incidents that happened in 1975-76 when the said officer was posted as Commandant 14th Battalion, SAF Gwalior. The Tribunal quashed the charges memo and the departmental enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in the initiation of the departmental proceedings with reference to an incident that tool place in 1975-76. The Appeal against the said order was filed in this Court on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. This court rejected the contention of the learned counsel. While dismissing the appeal this Court observed as follows: “The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1997 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. According to them even in April 1997 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There s no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunals orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” In the case of State of A.P. V. N.Radhakrishnan, 1998(4)SCC 154, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Director of Town Planning in the year 1976. A report dated 011. 1987 was sent by the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to the Secretary to the Government, Housing Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, about the irregularities in deviations and unauthorised constructions in multi storied complexes in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in collusion with municipal authorities. On the basis of the report, the State issued two memos both dated 112. 1987 in respect of three officials including the respondent-Radhakrishnan, the then Assistant City Planner. In this case, till 31.07.1995 the articles of charges had not been served on the respondent. The Tribunal, however, held that the memo dated 31.07.1995 related to incidents that happened ten years or more prior to the date of the memo and that there was absolutely no explanation by the Government for this inordinate delay in framing the charges and conducting the enquiry against the respondent and that there was no justification on the part of the State now conducting the enquiry against the respondent in respect of the incidents at this late stage. This court in para 19, has observed as follows: “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. 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 authorities is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basis principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job as 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 the relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is not 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. 21. Further as per Rule 9(A) of the TNCS (D & A) Rules, when more than one Government Servant of the same Department are involved, in any misconduct, the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations. 21. Further as per Rule 9(A) of the TNCS (D & A) Rules, when more than one Government Servant of the same Department are involved, in any misconduct, the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. It is admitted that in addition to the petitioner, 11 persons are involved in the allotment of house sites and instead of proceeding all of them as per Rule 9(A) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A )Rules, the respondents have proceeded only against the petitioner and even assuming that the respondents have proceeded against other officials, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be sustained as all of them were not prosecuted together as per provision of Rule 9(A) of the said Act.” 22. In similar cases, I have held in W.P.(MD)No.7828 of 2009, dated 212. 2009 in the case of R.Neethirajan vs. The Secretary to Government, Department Promotion Committee for Empanelment and Promotion as Assistant Conservators for the year 2008-09, Rep. Environment and Forests Department, Fort St., George, Chennai-9 and two others & in W.P.(MD)Nos.4355 & 4358 of 2009, dated 18.01.2010, in the cae of Senthurpandian vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Dept., Chennai-9 and another, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as action was not taken against all the delinquent officers together. Therefore, the proceedings of initiation of charges levelled against the petitioner individually is also against the provisions of Rule 9(A). Therefore, the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner by initiating charges and the charges are also liable to be quashed as the same was initiated after a lapse of 14 years and the charges are also against the earlier charges, which were exempted. 23. For all these reasons, the initiation of charges levelled against the petitioner, by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent. dated 21.02.2009 is quashed. As the charges levelled against the petitioner is quashed, the petitioner can not be kept under suspension and on those grounds also, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent challenged in W.P.(MD)No.8998 of 2007 is also quashed. 24. Hence, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.