Judgment :- 1. Though an application in M.A.No.1574 of 2004 in O.A.No.4152 of 2001 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to bring on record, the wife of the petitioner, as his legal representative, since the petitioner died on 24.03.2004, the application was not ordered. In these circumstances, Tmt.R.Ranganayaki, wife of the deceased petitioner is hereby suo motu brought on record. 2. The deceased petitioner was entered into Government service as Junior Assistant in 1953. He was promoted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in 1969. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his colleague Mr.Sivanraj, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. 3. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) framed the following two charges:- "Charge I: that actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position and authority, when he (accused officer -I) (Thiru V.Sivanraj) was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) Madurai and he (accused Officer -II) (Applicant) was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) Madurai, in collusion with each other, demanded and received an illegal gratification of Rs.300/-besides collecting Rs.250/-compounding fees from Thiru C.Muniyandi, S/o.Thiru Chockalingam Nadar, Partner, Thiruvalargal S.N.M.Mahalingam & Co., at 2399, East Masi Street, Madurai at about 6.30 P.M. on 17.5.76 when he was in the shop for a smooth settlement of the offence of non-billing of the sale of one kilogram of Grocery (Chillies) for Rs.8.25 detected by both of them (accused Officer - I and II) on that day (17.5.76). Charge II: that, actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his possession and authority, when he (accused Officer - I) was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Madurai and he (accused Officer -II) was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) Madurai, in collusion with each other, demanded and received an illegal gratification of Rs.250/- besides collecting Rs.250/-as compounding fees, from Thiru. Napoleon, S/o. Thiru Pachaya Nadar, Proprietor of Thiru M.P.Pachaya Nadar Son, at 179, East Masi Street, Madurai, at about 8.30 P.M. on 2.7.76 while he was in the shop, for smooth settlement of the offence of non-billing of sale of grocery Rs.10/-to Thiru V.Krishnaurthy, No.73, West Avanimoola Veethi, Madurai, detected by them both (accused Officer - I and II) on that day (2.7.76)." 4. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, after conducting enquiry, held that the charges framed against the petitioner and Mr.Sivanraj were proved and it recommended the imposition of punishment of removal from service. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, after conducting enquiry, held that the charges framed against the petitioner and Mr.Sivanraj were proved and it recommended the imposition of punishment of removal from service. 5. Based on the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Mr.Sivanraj was removed from service. 6. Mr.Sivanraj filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6869 of 1984 before this Court to quash the order of removal. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on 23.06.1986. But a Division Bench of this Court, on 08.02.1989, in W.A.No.1253 of 1986, set aside the order passed in W.P.No.6869 of 1984 and dismissed the said writ petition. 7. However, the deceased petitioner, when he was issued with a show cause notice dated 23.04.1981 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service, based on the charges held to be proved by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, filed writ petition in W.P.No.4340 of 1981 questioning the show cause notice. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on 21.07.1986. However, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal in W.A.No.806 of 1987, on 10.08.1989, preferred against the order dated 21.07.1986 passed in W.P.No.4340 of 1981, following the order dated 08.02.1989 passed in W.A.No.1253 of 1986. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.03.1986 on the show cause notice. 8. Since the deceased petitioner was to retire from service on 31.03.1986 on reaching the age of superannuation, the respondent issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.267, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 21.03.1986, placing the petitioner under suspension and also not permitting him to retire from service. Thereafter, the deceased petitioner was removed from service by the respondent vide order in G.O.(3D)No.12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 04.04.2001, after getting opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 9. The deceased petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4152 of 2001 to quash the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2001 passed in G.O.(3D)No.12, Commercial Taxes Department. 10. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the Original Application. 11. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.32851 of 2005 12. Heard the submissions made on either side. 13. 10. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the Original Application. 11. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.32851 of 2005 12. Heard the submissions made on either side. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a long delay in passing the final order removing the petitioner from service and that would vitiate the impugned order. That was the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate sought to sustain the removal order, based on the reply affidavit filed by the respondent. 15. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. The petitioner sought to question the show cause notice and in fact, he was successful at the first instance. However, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the show cause notice and dismissed the writ petition questioning the same. Therefore, the delay could not be attributed to the respondent. In fact, in the case of Mr.Sivanraj, who was similarly situated like the petitioner, removal order was passed and the same was also upheld. Further, the respondent sought opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and thereafter, passed the impugned order. The enquiry was completed at the earliest. Second show cause notice was given in 1981. It is a different matter, if there was delay in holding enquiry resulting in causing prejudice. The charges, based on which removal order was passed, are very serious. Thus, the petitioner is not prejudiced even if there is delay in passing the impugned order. 17. In view of the order dated 08.02.1989 passed in W.A.No.1253 of 1986 upholding the removal order of Mr.Sivanraj, the impugned order in G.O.(3D) No.12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 04.04.2001 has also to be sustained. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.