JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal. 2. The prayer in W.P.No.7894 of 2011 is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 17.3.2011 and to direct the first respondent to pay the retirement benefits pursuant to the superannuation of the petitioner on 31.3.2011. 3. The prayer in W.P.No.9377 of 2011 is to quash G.O.(2D)No.160 Revenue (Ser.2(2)) Department, dated 28.3.2011 and direct the first respondent to pay retirement benefits. 4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: (a) Petitioner joined as Junior Assistant on 16.8.1976 in the Revenue Department after being selected by the TNPSC. He was originally posted in the undivided Coimbatore Revenue District and after bifurcation, he opted to serve in the Erode district. He was promoted as Assistant on 23.4.1984, as Deputy Tahsildar on 5.5.1988, as Tahsildar on 23.9.2006 and as Deputy Collector on 5.6.2009. On 17.3.2011 the impugned charge memo was issued. (b) The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2001 and he was not allowed to retire by placing him under suspension by order dated 28.3.2011 on the ground that enquiry is pending against the petitioner regarding his dereliction of duty of not filing appeal within the allowable time against the lower Court orders before this Court and that condone delay petition filed belatedly was dismissed by this Court, which resulted in sanction of Rs.64,80,419/- towards enhanced compensation to the land owners with interest upto 31.8.2010 while he was working as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. According to the petitioner the said alleged misconduct has not been committed in December, 2004, when the petitioner was working as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar at Perundurai. (c) The petitioner was issued with charge memo on 17.3.2011 on the said aspect. The said charge memo was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.7894 of 2011. Since both the writ petitions are on the same subject matter, these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. (d) In Perundurai Taluk, the following persons served as Tahsildars/Deputy Tahsildars. Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Name P. Subramaniam, Tahsildar A. Panneerselvam, Tahsildar P. Karthikeyani, Tahsildar S. Palanisamy, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar N. Vaithianathan, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar Pon. (d) In Perundurai Taluk, the following persons served as Tahsildars/Deputy Tahsildars. Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Name P. Subramaniam, Tahsildar A. Panneerselvam, Tahsildar P. Karthikeyani, Tahsildar S. Palanisamy, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar N. Vaithianathan, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar Pon. Subramaniam, Tahsildar R. Muthusamy, Tahsildar V. Venkittu Subramani, Tahsildar P. Natarajan, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar S. Dharmalingam, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar R. Prema N. Visalakshi Period of Service 28.10.99 to 16.3.01 29.06.02 to 28.06.03 29.06.03 to 02.11.03 22.02.01 to 31.05.01 &01.09.01 to 07.04.02 12.06.02 to 18.03.03 17.03.01 to 28.06.02 07.10.05 to 16.11.06 24.12.99 to 21.02.01 01.06.01 to 31.08.01 19.03.03 to 07.08.01 08.08.03 to 07.12.04 15.04.04 to 17.09.04 Date of Retirement 03.01.07 31.03.06 31.03.06 31.07.06 30.04.04 31.03.07 31.07.08 30.09.09 30.06.10 31.05.10 30.04.09 30.04.07 The petitioner was posted as Deputy Tahsildar, Perundurai on 8.12.2004. (e) The Sub Court passed orders in L.A.O.P.Nos.23 to 25 and 27 of 1991 on 4.10.2000. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government Pleader gave opinion that the said judgment in those cases are not fit for filing appeals. The department filed appeals with petition to condone the delay of nine years before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court on 31.8.2010 on the ground of delay and also on merits as connected appeals were already dismissed and compensation was also awarded to similarly placed other land owners by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.892 of 1993 etc. batch dated 23.1.2002. (f) The contention of the petitioner is that when the order of the sub Court is confirmed by this Court, not merely on the ground of delay, but also on merits and the respondents having allowed persons working as Tahsildar in the said station to retire viz., N.Vijayalakshmi, R.Prema and S.Dharmalingam by orders dated 30.4.2007, 29.4.2009 and 27.4.2010, initiating proceedings only against the petitioner for not filing the appeal in time is discriminatory and unsustainable. (g) According to the petitioner for the past over 35 years he was having unblemished service of record. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the Sub Court being 4.10.2000, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not filing appeal. (g) According to the petitioner for the past over 35 years he was having unblemished service of record. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the Sub Court being 4.10.2000, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not filing appeal. The petitioner was posted in the said station after four years from the date of the order and even assuming that there is any delay due to which the department suffered loss, the persons served as Tahsildar at the relevant point of time alone can be proceeded with and not the petitioner, who was posted after four years, that too at the fag end of his career and the same is illegal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above points and submitted that the charges are without any basis and not maintainable and these writ petitions may be allowed with a direction to allow the petitioner to retire from service from 31.3.2011 with all benefits. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader on instructions submitted that in LAOP cases of Noyal, Orathapalayam village, Erode District, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Hectare for wet land and at the rate of Rs.7,613/- per Hectare for dry lands in respect of award passed in Award No.10/88, 13/88, 22/88 and 5/89 on 14.3.1988, 10.6.1988, 6.2.1988 and 31.3.1989 respectively. The land owners objected the said compensation fixed, and the matter was referred to the Sub Court, Erode, during the year 1991 and the Sub Court by order dated 4.12.2000 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.63,000/- per Hectare. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.845 Revenue Department dated 16.10.1988 giving clear instructions to the Land Acquisition Officers to file appeal uniformly in all cases where enhanced compensation exceeds three times of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or Rs.1 lakh and in such cases opinion of the Government Pleader is not necessary. In the said judgment dated 4.12.2000 some mistakes in survey number and extent were found. Therefore the Government Pleader was requested to get the judgment corrected. In the said judgment dated 4.12.2000 some mistakes in survey number and extent were found. Therefore the Government Pleader was requested to get the judgment corrected. Accordingly, the judgment with due corrections was received in the Taluk office, Perundurai on 9.2.2005 and at that time the petitioner was holding the post of Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, that is from 8.12.2004 to 13.5.2005 and the petitioner failed to file appeal against the Sub Court orders, which resulted in the land owners filing execution petition. The appeal filed with condone delay of nine years was dismissed on 22.7.2010, which have resulted in sanction of Rs.64,8,419/- towards enhanced compensation to the land owners with interest upto 31.8.2010. Therefore, 17(b) charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 17.3.2011, which is pending and the petitioner having reached the age of superannuation he was not permitted to retire by order dated 31.3.2011 and retained in service. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the appeal should have been filed by the petitioner after getting the judgments corrected, which was received only on 9.2.2005 and at the relevant point of time the petitioner was holding the post of Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, who is responsible for filing the appeal and therefore the charge framed against the petitioner is maintainable and the suspension as well as retaining the petitioner in service, who reached the age of superannuation on 31.3.2011 are all in order. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. The charges framed against the petitioner is, not filing appeals against the L.A.O.P. awards made in O.P.Nos.10, 13, 22 of 1988, 5 of 1989 dated 14.3.1988, 10.6.1988, 6.2.1988 and 31.3.1989 respectively and thereby the Government sustained loss by paying the enhanced compensation to the erstwhile land owners. The contention of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was not at all working in the said Taluk viz., Perundurai Taluk either as Tahsildar or as Deputy Tahsildar. The corrections in the award were made by the Sub Court on 26.7.2004 and at that point also the petitioner was not working in the said station. The certified copy of the order as corrected with opinion was obtained by the department on 12.12.2005 and from 14.12.2005 one R.Muthusamy was serving as Tahsildar in Perundurai Taluk. 9. The corrections in the award were made by the Sub Court on 26.7.2004 and at that point also the petitioner was not working in the said station. The certified copy of the order as corrected with opinion was obtained by the department on 12.12.2005 and from 14.12.2005 one R.Muthusamy was serving as Tahsildar in Perundurai Taluk. 9. The Petitioner served as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar at Perundurai from 8.12.2004 till 13.12.2005 i.e, till the next date of getting certified copy of the award along with legal opinion on 12.12.2005. From 14.12.2005, the petitioner was not serving as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar at Perundurai and therefore he cannot be blamed for not filing appeals against the L.A.O.P. awards, as he served in the station only for one day after receiving the certified copy of the order along with the opinion. 10. The appeals filed before this Court with condone delay applications in A.S.S.R.Nos.8490/2010, 35978/2010, 8492/2010 and 8497/2010 were dismissed by this Court on 22.7.2010, 26.7.2010, 26.7.2010 and 2.8.2010 respectively, on the ground of enormous delay of 3292 days, 3327 days, 3252 days and 1922 days in filing the appeals. If the delay is less than five years, one can understand that the petitioner is also to an extend responsible for not filing the appeals in time. On the contrary, the delay is between 6 and 9 years. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner is not the person to be blamed for the delay in filing the appeals before this Court against the award of the Sub Court. 11. The persons served as Tahsildars/Deputy Tahsildars from 2001 during the relevant time viz., P.Subramaniam, Tahsildar from 28.10.1999 to 16.3.2001 was allowed to retire on 3.1.2007; A. Panneerselvam, Tahsildar from 29.6.2002 to 28.6.2003 was allowed to retire on 31.3.2006; P.Karthikeyani, Tahsildar from 29.6.2003 to 2.11.2003 was allowed to retire on 31.3.2006; S. Palanisamy, who served as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar from 22.2.2001 to 31.5.2001 and 1.9.2001 to 7.4.2002 was allowed to retire on 31.7.2006. Similarly, eight other Tahsildars/Headquarters Deputy Tahsildars, who served either before or after petitioner's posting at Perundurai, were allowed to retire, except the petitioner. Thus, there is discrimination in initiating proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged non-filing of appeals within time. The appeals filed with condone delay petitions as stated supra were also dismissed by this Court, not only on the ground of delay but also on merits. Thus, there is discrimination in initiating proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged non-filing of appeals within time. The appeals filed with condone delay petitions as stated supra were also dismissed by this Court, not only on the ground of delay but also on merits. In the said order this Court observed as follows: "3. Even otherwise, the compensation ordered by the Court below cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Already a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.892 of 1993 and batch cases, dated 23.1.2002 had rejected similar appeals directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the Court below in the lands belonging to neighbouring land owners. 4. In the light of the above, this appeal at the stage of A.S.SR will stand dismissed. No costs." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a judgment made in A.S.No.892 of 1993 etc. batch, dated 23.1.2002. The Division Bench of this Court in the said decision held that the award passed by the Sub Court in the land acquisition proceedings regarding enhancement of compensation were just and proper and requires no interference. 13. As an order has been passed by this Court in the above referred appeals even at the SR stage on merits also, the respondents are not entitled to initiate proceedings against the petitioner on 17.3.2011. It is not the case of the respondents that the order passed in the above A.S.S.Rs have been appealed against. Moreover, the said orders are implemented by the respondents by paying compensation to the land owners, which reveals the acceptance of the order passed by this Court. If the department is aggrieved over the order passed by this Court in A.S.S.Rs, the remedy open to it is to file appeals against the said orders and initiating action against the petitioner, who served only for a brief period is unreasonable and arbitrary. 14. From the perusal of the charge memo also it is clear that no motive is attributed against the petitioner and the only allegation is that the Government sustained loss due to non-filing of appeals in time. 15. It is a well settled principle of law that Courts are not expected to quash the charge memo normally. 14. From the perusal of the charge memo also it is clear that no motive is attributed against the petitioner and the only allegation is that the Government sustained loss due to non-filing of appeals in time. 15. It is a well settled principle of law that Courts are not expected to quash the charge memo normally. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the second respondent is not justified in issuing the impugned charge memo and the consequential suspension order and the order retaining the petitioner in service by not allowing him to retire from 31.3.2011. 16. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned charge memo dated 17.3.2011 issued by the second respondent and the order of the first respondent dated 28.3.2011 are set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.3.2011 and pay all eligible terminal benefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.