Judgment : 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Forester, on 16.04.1974, and thereafter, promoted as Ranger, from 19.02.1998 and attained the age of superannuation, on 30.09.2007. Even though the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, he was not relieved from service and retained in service. A charge memo, dated 03.01.2008, was issued alleging that while he was working as Forester in Industrial Wood Research Division, Coimbatore, abusing his official position, acquired assets to the tune of Rs.3,13,826/-. Challenging the said charge memo, the present Writ Petition has been laid. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier by proceedings, dated 15.06.2004, invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services, [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1955, the petitioner was suspended from service. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 29.11.2004, the suspension of the petitioner was extended until the completion of the departmental proceedings initiated against him and the criminal case registered on the file of Keeriparai Police Station, in Crime No.61 of 2003. Subsequently, followed by the suspension, a charge sheet under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1955, was issued to the petitioner, by proceedings, dated 22.06.2004, which was, thereafter, by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 12.10.2006, dropped on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. 3. The learned counsel further submits that when the matter stood thus, by proceedings, dated 26.09.2007, the first respondent retained the service of the petitioner on the ground that the Criminal Case in S.C.No.171 of 2006, on the file of the District Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, is still under trial. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the criminal cases ended in acquittal and only to wreck vengeance against the activities of the petitioner, who was the president of the Forest Association, this false and vague charge memo has been issued in the year 2008. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the Judgments in M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 and The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Ramarajan, reported in 2009 (3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) and pleaded that the charge memo may be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the charge memo has been issued, after a detailed enquiry and based on documentary evidences. R.Ramarajan, reported in 2009 (3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) and pleaded that the charge memo may be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the charge memo has been issued, after a detailed enquiry and based on documentary evidences. Further according to the learned Government Advocate, the delay alone cannot be a criteria to quash the charges. The learned Government Advocate further contended that the petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and therefore, the appropriate authority is entitled to enquire into the matter, and hence, sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 7. Admittedly, the charge memo has been issued, on 03.01.2008, for the alleged acquisition of assets between 01.01.1995 to 31.12.1997. In the year 2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Charges were framed against him for making some statements as president of the Forest Association. Subsequently, after enquiry, the charges were dropped, on 12.10.2006. The reason for retention of the petitioner, after his superannuation, was only on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him, which also subsequently ended in acquittal. Therefore, the delay of 11 years in issuing the charge memo is clearly unacceptable. From the various proceedings and conduct, it can be seen that the respondents were determined to delay the retirement of the petitioner on one pretext or another. 8. Now coming to the charge memo, two charges framed against the petitioner are that (1) the petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his sources of income and (2) that the association had gifted him a bike without getting a prior permission of the concerned authorities. No documentary evidence has been listed to be marked. Also there is no material to show that an enquiry was conducted so extensively that it would take 11 years to frame the charge memo. All the particulars seem to have been taken from the service records itself. Also this Court finds it strange upon the method of calculation adopted by the disciplinary authority. Upon perusal of the assets, this Court is unable to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his income. All the particulars seem to have been taken from the service records itself. Also this Court finds it strange upon the method of calculation adopted by the disciplinary authority. Upon perusal of the assets, this Court is unable to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his income. From Annexure II, the assets that are newly purchased are two fans and a camera worth Rs.3,500/-and this could very well have been purchased by the petitioner from his salary. Also what is evident is that the petitioner has put up construction in the property received from his father by availing loans, which are also reflected in Annexure III. Obviously, the value of the property would have increased by the time and that cannot be treated as income beyond source. As stated earlier, the very method, based on which the calculations have been made, is wrong. There is also no specification as to the asset, which was acquired beyond the known sources. The entire calculation has been made on value appreciation, and therefore, the charges can only be termed as vague and without application of mind. 9. With regard to the second charge, the scooter was gifted in January 1994 and the same also finds place in Annexure I. It is only a gift and the petitioner has not purchased the same. The charge now has been framed after 14 years, which again cannot be permitted to continue on account of delay. From the conduct of the respondents, it is also clear that they would not have framed any charges against the petitioner had he not been an active member of Forest Association. The charge also does not specify in whose name the vehicle stands. Further, it is also not disputed that the cost of the vehicle was paid by the members of the association, and therefore, prior permission is not necessary. The permission and intimation as contemplated in the Rules is only when the property is purchased or acquired from the funds of the employee. Therefore, the charge now framed is only to harass the petitioner. 10. In the Judgment in M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 , the Apex Court has held as under: "16. Therefore, the charge now framed is only to harass the petitioner. 10. In the Judgment in M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 , the Apex Court has held as under: "16. So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been shown as to what were the duties of the appellant in terms of the prescribed rules or otherwise. Furthermore, it has not been shown either by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority as to how and in what manner the maintenance of ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which were found attached to the estimate file were not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or otherwise of the appellant. The Appellate Authority in its order stated that the appellant was not required to prepare ACE-8 Register twice. The appellant might have prepared another set of register presumably keeping in view the fact that he was asked to account for the same on the basis of the materials placed on records. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer. 17. In State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, this Court has clearly held: (SCC p. 740, para 4) “The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry are 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 1977 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 is 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.” 11. In the decision in The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. There is 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.” 11. In the decision in The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Ramarajan, reported in 2009 (3) TLNJ 132 (Civil), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: "17. In this connection, we may refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh [AIR 1990 SC 1309] wherein it has been held that normally a mere pendency or contemplated disciplinary proceedings absolutely have no impact upon the right of the government servant to be considered for promotion. In Union of India Vs. K.V.Janakiraman [ AIR 1991 SC 2010 ], it was that 'sealed cover' procedure is to be adopted in cases where the charge memo was issued and the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to follow the 'sealed cover' process. Rejecting the plea that when there are serious allegations it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The plea that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment, etc. would not be tenable. The preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalize the charges... ... ... The promotion, etc, cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge/-sheet has already been issued to the employee." [emphasis supplied] In the present case, the charge-memo was served on the first respondent, on 29.09.2006. ... ... The promotion, etc, cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge/-sheet has already been issued to the employee." [emphasis supplied] In the present case, the charge-memo was served on the first respondent, on 29.09.2006. The 'sealed cover' procedure followed in the matter of considering the name of the first respondent for conferment of a status/to a higher post for the periods 2004, 2005 and till 28.09.2006, in our considered view, is illegal." 12. This Court in The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, in W.P.No.1365 of 2011, dated10.12.2012 had an occasion to consider a similar issue and held as follows:- "7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Gilurker v. Bilespur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr reported in 2011 (5) CTC 564, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: "7. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations reproduced above would show that only vague allegations were made against the appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the Appellant have not been mentioned. 8...... 9. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of Bengal [ 1970(3) SCC 548 ]: "5. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstances which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India & Ors v. Gyan Chand Chattar [ 2009(12) SCC 78 ] and in para 35 of the judgment as reported in the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and Principles of Natural Justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges." 8. It is relevant to refer an unreported judgment of the First Bench of this Court dated 03.07.2008 in W.A.No.587 of 2008 [Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Chennai-9 and others vs. M.Subramanian]. The Hon'ble First bench has relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding in the said case that the charges are totally vague and as such, there is no legal and valid basis for continuing with the departmental proceedings. The First Bench has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: [A] SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as here under: "4...............The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This Rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. This Rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him........... [B] SAWAI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1986 SC 995 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as here under:- "............ where a departmental enquiry entails consequences like loss of job, which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fairplay in action in respect of an order involving adverse and penal consequences of an employee, and the learned Judges held that the charges must be clear and specific; otherwise, it will be difficult for the employee to meet the charges. ................. 14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused." [C] TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADRAS – 5 Vs. A.RADHAKRISHNAMOORTHY reported in 1999(1) SCC 332, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 9 as here under:- "9. Insofar as the vagueness of the charges is concerned we find that it deserves acceptance. It is asserted by Shri Vaidhyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that except the memo of charges dated 04.06.1989, no other particulars of charges or supporting particulars were supplied. This assertion could not be denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. A reading of charges would show that they are not specific and clear. They do not point out clearly the precise charge against the respondent, which he was expected to meet. One can understand the charges being accompanied by a statement of particulars or other statement furnishing the particulars of the aforesaid charges but that was not done. The charges are general in nature to the effect that the respondent along with 8 other officials indulged in misappropriating by falsification of accounts. What part did the respondent play, which account did he falsify or help falsify, which amount did he individually or together with other named persons misappropriate, are not particularised. The charges are general in nature to the effect that the respondent along with 8 other officials indulged in misappropriating by falsification of accounts. What part did the respondent play, which account did he falsify or help falsify, which amount did he individually or together with other named persons misappropriate, are not particularised. The charge is a general one. It is significant to notice that respondent has been objecting to the charges on the ground of vagueness from the earliest stage and yet he was not furnished with the particulars. It is brought to our notice that respondent's name was not included in the schedule appended to G.O.Ms.No.928 dated 25.04.1988 mentioning the names of officials responsible for falsification of accounts and misappropriation and that he is also not made an accused in the criminal proceedings initiated in that behalf." [D] The decision in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. A.VENKATA RAIDU reported in 2007(1) SCC 338 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 9 as here under:- "9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In charge 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued b;y the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO, etc., but that was not done. Copies of the said Gos, or directions of the Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, charge 1 was not specific and hence, no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged." 13. The above Judgments are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The charges are vague, as they do not state specifically the assets. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged." 13. The above Judgments are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The charges are vague, as they do not state specifically the assets. As held by me earlier, the enhanced value of the already existing properties have been quoted to frame the charges. Also there is inexplicable delay in framing the charges. No material has been produced to show when and by whom the enquiry was conducted before charges were framed. The charge memo is also silent on the same. 14. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the charge memo is vague and has been framed only to harass the petitioner after inordinate delay. Hence, the charges cannot be sustained and the same are hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 03.01.2008, is quashed and the first respondent is directed to pass orders accordingly and disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.