Judgment : 1. In all, the petitioner has filed three Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.9280 of 2011 has been filed with a prayer for a Mandamus to direct the third respondent to relieve the petitioner from the present post of Tahsildar in view of the order of the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.95 Revenue (Ser.1) Department, dated 18.02.2011 appointing the petitioner as Deputy Collector. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, M.P.No.1 of 2012 has been filed seeking for amendment of the prayer to read as “to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent resulting in the impugned order G.O.(2D) No.291 Revenue (Ser.1) Department, dated 13.07.2011 and quash the same insofar it affects the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to relieve the petitioner from the post of Tahsildar in view of the order of the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.95 Revenue (Ser.1) Development dated 18.02.2011 appointing the petitioner as Deputy Collector.” 2. Writ Petition No.9281 of 2011 has been filed to issue a Writ of Certorari to call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in Rc.No.25137/2010/A1, dated 21.02.2011, whereby two charges were levelled against the petitioner, and to quash the same as null and void. 3. Writ petition No.9282 of 2011 has been filed to issue a Writ of Certorari to call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in Rc.No.26410/2010/A1, dated 21.02.2011, whereby four charges were levelled against the petitioner, and to quash the same as null and void. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 19.8.1980 on compassionate ground, and the petitioner’s family consisted of his mother, four brothers, one sister and the petitioner. Since the petitioner’s elder brother left his family, his whereabouts were not known. Subsequent to the death of his father, the second brother also left his family, who was employed as a Teacher in a Private School, at that point of time. The petitioner’s mother with a great difficulty was able to look after the petitioner as well as his younger brothers, aged about 5 and 2 years respectively, and younger sister, aged about 8 years. The petitioner was aged about 10 years. As his father died in harness, his family found it difficult to meet both ends. The petitioner’s mother with a great difficulty was able to look after the petitioner as well as his younger brothers, aged about 5 and 2 years respectively, and younger sister, aged about 8 years. The petitioner was aged about 10 years. As his father died in harness, his family found it difficult to meet both ends. However, he managed to study upto graduation. In the above circumstances, the petitioner requested the District Collector, Thanjavur, who conducted elaborate enquiry about his family’s need and assistance, offered employment. Initially, the petitioner joined as Junior Assistant at the Office of the Special Tahsildar, Tiruvarur, on 25.8.1980 and thereafter, he was promoted to various categories, such as Assistant, Deputy Tahsildar, and Tahsildar. Ultimately, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector on 18.2.2011, which comes under the State Service. For the last 31 years of service, he has maintained unblemished records and he has not visited with any disciplinary proceedings at all. Though the first respondent / Principal Secretary to Government, has issued order posting the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam, which comes under the Trichy City Municipal Corporation, the third respondent / the District Collector, Tiruvarur, without serving the said order, has surprisingly served two impugned orders dated 21.2.2011 stating that Disciplinary Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. By the impugned charge memo dated 21.2.2011 in Rc.No.25137/2010A.1, two charges have been levelled against the petitioner. The first one is that, the petitioner got appointment on compassionate ground as legal heir of the deceased by stating that none of his family members was in Government Service, by suppressing the fact that his brother was working as Teacher and he also produced a certificate to the effect that none of his family members was in Government Service. The other charge is that, in view of the above false statement, the petitioner has violated the Government Servant Conduct Rules. Aggrieved over these charges, W.P.No.9281 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner to quash the charge memo. Similarly, by the impugned charge memo dated 21.2.2011 in Rc.No.26410/2010/A.1, four charges have been levelled against the petitioner. The first charge levelled against the petitioner is that, without permission from the Department, he has purchased an immovable property, which is an extent of 1905 sq.ft. Similarly, by the impugned charge memo dated 21.2.2011 in Rc.No.26410/2010/A.1, four charges have been levelled against the petitioner. The first charge levelled against the petitioner is that, without permission from the Department, he has purchased an immovable property, which is an extent of 1905 sq.ft. including a house and compound wall, in Survey No.79/2 in Nannilam Village and Nannilam Taluk, vide Sale Deed document No.797/2000. The second charge is that without permission from the Department, he made remittance of LIC premium in one lump sum to the tune of Rs.2,01,596 vide Policy No.756671986 dated 23.9.2010. The third charge is that, by the above said acts, the petitioner has violated the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973. The last charge is that the petitioner has acted against the Government Servant Conduct Rules. Aggrieved over this charge memo, W.P.No.9282 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner to quash the said charge memo. 5. It has been further stated in the affidavit that the District Collector, Tiruvarur/ the third respondent has no jurisdiction or power or authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner as he became a member of State Service on and from 18.2.2011. As the petitioner is governed by the State Service, for which the appointing authority is Government of Tamil Nadu, and the competent authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner is the Commissioner of Revenue Administration being the Head of the Department on and from 18.2.2011. As such, the third respondent has no jurisdiction or power or authority to initiate Disciplinary action against the petitioner’s subsequent appointment as Deputy Collector in the State Service, that too, after he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchy City Municipal Corporation. When the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector on 18.2.2011, the subsequent action initiated on 21.02.2011 is without jurisdiction and the same is in violation of Rule 12(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which specifically stipulates that the Head of the Department concerned alone can institute Disciplinary Proceeding under 17(a) or under 17(b) on all Members of the State Service. Further, according to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated vide charge memos dated 21.2.2011 under Rc.No.25137/10/A1 and Rc.No.26410/2010/A1 calling for explanation for the charges alleged therein under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules is not a bar for considering promotion to the higher post. 6. Further, according to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated vide charge memos dated 21.2.2011 under Rc.No.25137/10/A1 and Rc.No.26410/2010/A1 calling for explanation for the charges alleged therein under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules is not a bar for considering promotion to the higher post. 6. It is further stated by the petitioner that he has sent a letter to the District Collector seeking permission/ratification for purchase of the said property on 30.11.2000. The petitioner has also submitted Return of Assets and Liabilities as on 16.4.2001 mentioning the purchase of the said property and, subsequently, Return of Assets and Liabilities on 20.3.2007. Insofar as the alleged remittance of LIC premium is concerned, the said premium was adjusted by way of surrendering the four LIC policies obtained in the year 2006 and 2007 and the same was recycled as new policy referred in Charge No.2, and therefore, no amount has been paid as alleged on 23.9.2010. 7. Opposing the Writ Petitions, Counter Affidavits have been filed by the third respondent/ District Collector, Tiruvarur, in all the three Writ Petitions denying the allegations. Since the petitioner has obtained employment on compassionate ground by concealing the fact that his brother was working as a Teacher in Government Service and purchased immovable property without getting permission from the Department and paid LIC premium in one lump sum without getting permission from the department, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. It is further contended by the third respondent / District Collector that since disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have been initiated, the petitioner was not relieved from the 8. Mr.A.Ilango, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the third respondent has no power or authority to retain the petitioner in the post of Tahsildar without relieving him from the said post even after the receipt of the appointment order dated 18.2.2011 from the first respondent / Principal Secretary to Government, appointing the petitioner as Deputy Collector and posting him as Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam. The action of the third respondent in not relieving the petitioner from the post of Tahsildar is arbitrary and the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the third respondent in not relieving the petitioner from the post of Tahsildar is arbitrary and the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated on 21.2.2011 after receipt of the appointment order of the petitioner dated 18.2.2011 as Deputy Collector, the third respondent / District Collector is without jurisdiction. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that, after three decades, the Disciplinary action has been initiated for the alleged irregularity in the year 1980 for the false statement that none of the family members of the deceased employee was in Government service though the petitioner’s brother was alleged to be working as Teacher in the Government, and that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the respondent for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary action. In support of his contention, the learned counsel heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD., T.N. Housing Board [(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 636] wherein the charge memo issued against the alleged delinquent employee in the year 2000 for the irregularity committed during the year 1990, has been quashed on the ground of laches. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the petitioner purchased the property of 6.11.2000, he intimated the same and sought permission/ratification from the District Collector for the said transaction on 30.11.2000 itself. Similarly, insofar as the payment of LIC premium is concerned, since the said premium was adjusted by way of surrendering the four LIC policies obtained in the year 2006 and 2007 and the same was recycled as new policy referred in Charge No.2 and no amount has been paid as alleged on 23.9.2010. 11. On the contrary, Mr.A.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, has contended that since disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have been initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner was not relieved from the post of Tahsildar. 11. On the contrary, Mr.A.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, has contended that since disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have been initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner was not relieved from the post of Tahsildar. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that, as per Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, “the authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (iii) and (v) of Rule 8 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in items (iv) and (vi) to (viii) of Rule 8 notwithstanding the fact that such Authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the latter mentioned penalties.” Hence, the District Collector has the jurisdiction to issue charge memo to the delinquent officer. It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No368, P & AR Department dated 18.10.1993, if disciplinary proceedings is pending under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the person concerned shall not be promoted and notwithstanding the fact, his name has been included in the panel and therefore, the petitioner was not relieved to join in the promoted post. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is devoid of merits and the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated above. 12. Heard both sides and perused the impugned charge memos. 13. The only question raised in these Writ Petitions is whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated for certain alleged irregularity after more than three decades? 14. In this context, it is more useful to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of A.P. V. N. Radhakishan [ (1998) 4 SCC 154 . “19. 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. “19. 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. 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 authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has 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 relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to 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.” In the said judgment, the Apex Court held that there was hardly any explanation worth consideration as to why the delay occurred and held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 31-7-1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed. 15. While following the principles laid down in the said judgment, in the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD.T.N. Housing Board [(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 636], the Apex Court held as follows:- “7. The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition.” 16. A careful reading of the above decisions of the Apex Court abundantly makes it clear that the protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. Moreover, the petitioner, who was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector from the post of Tahsildar has been deprived of the said promotion by the third respondent/District Collector, Tiruvarur. Admittedly, there has been huge unexplained delay of 31 years in issuing charge memo stating that at the time of getting appointment, the petitioner made a false statement that none of the family members of the deceased employee was in Government Service. Till now, he has not been relieved from the post of Special Tahsildar to join the post of Deputy Collector. Therefore, at this juncture, it is necessary to draw the curtain and put an end on the sole ground of 31 years of unexplained delay in taking steps to enquire into the allegation relating to the year 1980. Secondly, even after his promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, vide order dated 18.2.2011, for the past three and a half years not allowing him to function as Deputy Collector is itself a huge mental agony, therefore, as the petitioner has already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings, and as a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner underwent due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much worse than the punishment. 17. 17. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the charges levelled against the petitioner are related to the year 1980, viz., 31 years ago and it is not known why the respondent department did not take up this matter 30 years ago. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned orders/charge memos in the light of the aforesaid judgments. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned charge memos are quashed. The impugned order in G.O.(2D) No.291 Revenue (Ser.1) Department, dated 13.07.2011 insofar it affects the petitioner is also quashed and the third respondent / District Collector, Tirvuarur, is directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Tahsildar, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.