Judgment The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner submits that he was appointed as Junior Assistant through a selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1983 in the Office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Office of the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records and joined duty on 12.06.1985. His services have been further transferred to the office of the Director of Survey and Settlement and the petitioner joined duty on 01.09.1986. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 1988 by dint of hard work and seniority, he was promoted as Superintendent in the respondent's office by including his name in the panel of the Superintendent for the year 1996 and promoted on 16.07.1996. His services in the cadre of the Superintendent is regularised from 14.09.2000 in a permanent vacancy. The petitioner had undergone Revenue Inspector training during the year 1991-1993 at Arni Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District and the service of the petitioner has been meritorious throughout. 2. The petitioner additionally added that he is eligible to be included in the “C” list of Tasildhars for the year 2004 as he had already undergone Revenue Inspector training and opted to serve in the Revenue Department as early as 1991. The petitioner submits that based on seniority and merit, his name was recommended and his name was included by the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.Pani 3/1/25378/2004 dated 05.08.2004 in Commissioner of Revenue Administration in Na.Ka.Pani 3/1/25378/2004 dated 05.08.2004 in Sl.No.6 and allotted to Thiruvallur District for undergoing training as Tahsildar. The petitioner has been deputed to undergo training as Tahsildar for two years by an order dated 05.08.2004 and allotted to Thiruvallur District. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to undergo training as Deputy Tahsildar for five months, police training for one month and Magisterial training for six months and to serve as Tahsildar for a period of twelve months, in total two years. By an order dated 31.08.2004, the District Collector has issued the posting order and posted the petitioner at Head Quarters as Deputy Tahsildhar, Thiruvallur and directed him to join duty immediately. The order further states that the petitioner should not ask for extension of time for joining the duty or enter leave. By an order dated 31.08.2004, the District Collector has issued the posting order and posted the petitioner at Head Quarters as Deputy Tahsildhar, Thiruvallur and directed him to join duty immediately. The order further states that the petitioner should not ask for extension of time for joining the duty or enter leave. The post of Superintendent and the training Tahsildar carries the same scale of pay, besides duties and responsibilities. 3. It is submitted that the post of the training Tahsildar is not a promotional post, but it is an equivalent post. The petitioner has to be relieved and report for duty before the District Collector, Thiruvallur on 01.09.2004, but he has been issued with the impugned charge memo dated 28.07.2004, served on the petitioner on 30.08.2004, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service ( D & A) Rules containing three charges, it is submitted that based on the service of the charge memo, the petitioner has not been relieved from the post of Superintendent in order to report for duty before the District Collector, Thiruvallur, for undergoing training as Tahsildar. It is submitted that the above charge memo came to be issued only to prevent the petitioner from undergoing training as Tahsildar and as Tahsildar in the District Collector's Office, Thiruvallur. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was serving as Superintendent in the respondent's office. The Mandiragiri Velayudhaswamy Temple, Palladam owned several extents of land. The village was taken over under the Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and parties were granted pattas after conducting an enquiry. The Settlement Tahsildar in his proceedings SR.No.664/1968 dated 21.08.1968 granted patta for an extent of 5.57 acres and 4.62 acres comprised in S.No.232/1 and 234/1 in favour of Venkatachala Gounder and others under section 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963. The Tahsildhar has granted patta to an extent of 28 acres 40 cents comprised in S.No.232/2 and 234/2 in favour of Mandiragiri Velayudhaswamy Temple located at Parameswarampalayam, represented by its Poojari, Subramania Gurukal. The above said order has become final as early as 1968. But subsequently Palaniswamy and 12 others filed CMA.No.30 of 2000 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore, challenging the said order dated 21.08.1968 on the ground that the Settlement Tahsildar did not consider the claims of the appellant in respect of Survey No.232/2 and 234/2 and prayed for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. But subsequently Palaniswamy and 12 others filed CMA.No.30 of 2000 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore, challenging the said order dated 21.08.1968 on the ground that the Settlement Tahsildar did not consider the claims of the appellant in respect of Survey No.232/2 and 234/2 and prayed for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner who was serving as a Superintendent in the respondent office gave proper instructions to the Government Pleader at Subordinate Court, Coimbatore to contest the matter. 5. It is submitted that the Inam Abolition Tribunal held that no opportunity was given the appellants to put forth their contention before the settlement enquiry and by an order dated 18.11.2002 the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the order dated 21.08.1968 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer to conduct an enquiry afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chennai-5 who was holding the post of Settlement Tahsildar due to the abolition post issued notice to the parties, conducted an enquiry and granted patta in favour of Rasappa Gounder and 20 others in Survey No.232/2 and 234/2. In the enquiry, on the side of the claimant, one Rasappa Gounder was examined and on the side of the temple, the Trustee, the Village Administrative Office, Nallur and the Tahsildar, Tiruppur was examined as the objection raised by the temple was negatived and the claimants were directed to pay the land assessment tax (20 times) and ordered grant of patta for their possession and enjoyment under section 11 sub-section 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963. 6. It is submitted that against the grant of patta the temple has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.21360 of 2003 and initially this Court granted stay but subsequently the stay was vacated. It is submitted that the order was passed by statutory authority namely the Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chennai and the petitioner as Superintendent in the office was given instructions to complete the case and he has not colluded with any party in order to grant pattas in favour of the parties. The petitioner was served with a charge memo as early as 28.03.2003 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules containing 3 charges stating that he was responsible for granting of patta to an extent of 28.40 acres in favour of Palaniswamy and others. The petitioner was served with a charge memo as early as 28.03.2003 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules containing 3 charges stating that he was responsible for granting of patta to an extent of 28.40 acres in favour of Palaniswamy and others. 7. The petitioner further states that when the statutory authority passes an order based on the records and oral evidence, the only course open to the aggrieved parties is to prefer an appeal in the appellate forum and no motive can be attributed in favour of the Government officials who work under them. It is to be mentioned that the petitioner as a Superintendent in the office has given instructions to the Government regarding the nature of the land, etc. and did not favour grant of patta in favour of any of the parties. The Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chennai has considered all the relevant facts and has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for grant of patta. It is also submitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer who passed the order has been retired from service and has not been proceeded in the disciplinary proceedings. According to Section 47(2), (3) & (4) of the Minor Inam Act 30 of 1963, any order passed under the Act cannot be challenged in the civil court and no civil, criminal or any other proceedings can be initiated for any act done under this Act. There was no allegation against the petitioner that he has helped the claimants to get the patta. Moreover, when the Inam Abolition Tribunal heard the matter, the petitioner was not serving in the section which deals with the grant of patta. 8. The petitioner was served with an additional charge memo on 03.09.2003 containing two more charges. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for the charges issued to him immediately thereafter. An enquiry was conducted by the P.A. to the Director of Survey and Land Records Department and the enquiry officer has held that all the 8 charges framed against him have not been proved and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The Department instead of dropping the charges against the petitioner has issued another charge memo modifying the earlier charge memo from 17(b) to 17(a) by an order dated 03.06.2004 and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation for the charges. The Department instead of dropping the charges against the petitioner has issued another charge memo modifying the earlier charge memo from 17(b) to 17(a) by an order dated 03.06.2004 and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation for the charges. In the meanwhile, based on the recommendation of the respondent, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration included the name of the petitioner in the Tahsildhar List for the year 2004 and allotted him to undergo training at Thiruvallur District. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for the charge memo issued to him under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules. On 05.08.2004 the name of the petitioner was included in the list of Tahsildar for the year 2004 and allotted to Thiruvallur District and on 31.08.2004 the District Collector has given him the posting order as Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar in Thiruvallur District. Now after a lapse of two years, after an enquiry was conducted and after a finding has been recorded holding that the charges have not been proved, the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) for the same set of allegations and he has been directed to submit his explanation. 9. The petitioner states that proceeding against him when he has been issued with a charge memo and a finding has been recorded and based on the findings, modified the punishment from Rule 17(a) into one of 17(b) is unsustainable. The petitioner cannot be proceeded twice for the same set of allegations when there is a 'no evidence' report with regard to the alleged delinquency which amounts to double jeopardy. 10. The petitioner states that the entire charge memo was issued only at the instance of the enemies of the petitioner in his office in order to prevent the petitioner from being sent for training as Tahsildar in Thiruvallur District. It is submitted that when he has already been issued with a charge memo and an enquiry has been conducted and a finding has been recorded for the same set of allegations, he cannot be issued with another charge memo after a lapse of two years for the same set of allegations. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition and challenged the respondent's impugned charge memo dated 28.07.2004. 11. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition and challenged the respondent's impugned charge memo dated 28.07.2004. 11. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. K. Venkataramani appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1983. Subsequently he was transferred to the Director of Survey and Settlement Officer, he was promoted as an Assistant in the year 1988 and he was further promoted as Superintendent in the office of the second respondent in the year 1996. The petitioner was undergoing Revenue Inspector's training during the year 1991-1993 at Arni Taluk at Thiruvannamalai District. The petitioner's name had been included in the “C” list of Tahsildars for the year 2004. Further, the petitioner's name was included in the first respondent's proceedings to undergo training as Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar for a period of two years. Accordingly the petitioner was deputed to undergo training as Tahsildar for two years by an order dated 05.08.2004 and allotted to Thiruvallur District. 12. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner had to undergo training as Deputy Tahsildar for six months, police training for one month and also training for six months in Magisterial training and to serve as a Revenue Tahsildar for twelve months, in total a period of two years. Following the order of the first respondent/Special Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the District Collector of Thiruvallur District/fourth respondent herein issued an order dated 31.08.2004 and posted the petitioner as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar and directed him to join duty immediately. The petitioner has to be relieved from the office of the third respondent Director of Survey and Settlement Department, but instead of relieving him, he was issued with a charge memo dated 28.03.2004 served on the petitioner on 30.08.2004 under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D & A) Rules. Earlier the petitioner was issued through the first respondent containing three charges with reference to an allegation that the petitioner was instrumental in granting patta to 17 persons relating to lands owned by Mandiragiri Velayutham Temple, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District to an extent of 28 acres and due to his failure in bringing it to the knowledge of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the patta was granted. The petitioner was also issued with an additional charge memo containing nine charges on 03.03.2003. The petitioner was also issued with an additional charge memo containing nine charges on 03.03.2003. The petitioner had submitted an explanation on 12.01.2004 denying all the charges. The personal assistant to the Director of Survey and Settlement Officer was appointed as an enquiry officer to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry officer considered the explanation of the petitioner and also perused the records and submitted a report on 05.04.2004, holding that all the charges have been levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. Further the first respondent did not act on the Executive Officer's report submitted on 05.04.2004. 13. The highly competent senior counsel further submits that instead of the Executive Officer's report, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 03.06.2004 under Rule 17(a) of TNCS (D & A) Rules containing the same charge. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.06.2004 stating that the charges subsequently given on 03.06.2004 has already been enquired into by the enquiry officer and the report is available with them and requested to drop further action in the disciplinary proceedings. 14. The learned senior counsel further submits that the third respondent unfortunately issued another charge memo dated 28.07.2004 under Rule 17(B) of TNCS (D & A) Rules containing similar charge which have been issued in the earlier charge memo dated 25.03.2003, 03.09.2003 and 03.06.2004. In the meantime, the petitioner who was due for District training for Deputy Tahsildar was prevented from attending the training in view of the charge memo and also sought for a direction to relieve him in order to enable him to join the training for Tahsildar in Thiruvallur District. At the time of admission this Court stayed the charge memo and also issued a direction to relieve the petitioner from the officer of the first respondent and permit him to join the training since his name has already been included and deputed for training. The charge memo was stayed on the ground that on the same set of allegations a charge memo has already been issued to the petitioner and the enquiry report is already available with them and without cancelling the earlier charge memo, the respondent issued another charge memo as such, the third charge memo dated 28.07.2004 is not sustainable under law. The charge memo was stayed on the ground that on the same set of allegations a charge memo has already been issued to the petitioner and the enquiry report is already available with them and without cancelling the earlier charge memo, the respondent issued another charge memo as such, the third charge memo dated 28.07.2004 is not sustainable under law. However, the enquiry officer's report is not the final conclusion and the disciplinary authority has got only the right to disagree with the view of the enquiry officer's report and after issuing show cause notice mentioning the reason for direction to impose a punishment on the petitioner. But no such action has been taken by the first respondent. The respondents had issued charge memos one after another on the same charges without cancelling the earlier charge memo which amounts to high irregularity and vindictiveness. Further, the respondents charge memo amounts to triple jeopardy. Further, an employee cannot be proceeded with departmentally for the same set of allegations twice, in the instant case. 15. The petitioner was relieved as per the direction of this Court and reported for duty on 10.11.2004 before the District Collector, Thiruvallur and completed the five months Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar's training besides the petitioner had also completed one month of police training and six months of Magisterial training. Further as per earlier order the petitioner has to serve as Tahsildar for a period of one year. Actually the petitioner had not submitted any false report for granting patta in favour of third parties of the Government land, but two criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and others in crime Nos.174 of 2005 and 386 of 2005 on the file of the Thirupachethy Police Station and Karaikudi Police Station respectively. After registering the said criminal case the petitioner was directed to be reverted to the present department at the middle of the training. Further the petitioner was under suspension on the ground that he is facing criminal cases. As per the guide lines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.247 dated 20.10.2007, the petitioner cannot be suspended from service even though through a mere registration of a criminal case. As per the first charge memo and subsequent charge memos the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner have not been proven. As per the guide lines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.247 dated 20.10.2007, the petitioner cannot be suspended from service even though through a mere registration of a criminal case. As per the first charge memo and subsequent charge memos the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner have not been proven. Under the circumstance parallel proceedings by way of registering criminal cases is not maintainable under law. Further, the petitioner's juniors who have completed the Tahsildars training and reached the Deputy Collector's position and also District Revenue Officer position, but the innocent petitioner is still in the present position. 16. The following judgments are relied upon in support of the claim of the petitioner for quashing the third charge memo ... (i) 2003 SCC L & S Pg. 791, Union of India Vs. K.D.Pandey & Anr. Departmental Enquiry – Enquiry report – Findings given in favour of the charged employee reversed in subsequent report submitted after conducting further enquiry in same matter on direction of disciplinary authority who was not satisfied with the earlier report – validity – Where the enquiry report submitted contains specific findings in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter, held, the disciplinary authority, if not satisfied with the said report, cannot remit the matter to enquiring authority for further enquiry – If done so, it would mean a second enquiry and not a further enquiry in same matter – Such a practice, if allowed, would be abuse of process of law. It is submitted that admittedly an earlier enquiry was conducted and the report is available with the department. There is no defects in the earlier enquiry and the enquiry report has not been set aside. While such being the position, the second and third charge memo for the same set of allegations cannot be issued and even if it is issued it will amount to a second enquiry, if it is allowed, it amounts to abuse of process of law. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in a reported Judgment 2005 (5) CTC 380 has held a similar view in the case of A.Obaidullah Vs. State of Tamilnadu & Anr. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in a reported Judgment 2005 (5) CTC 380 has held a similar view in the case of A.Obaidullah Vs. State of Tamilnadu & Anr. The above judgment was subsequently followed by in 2007 5 MLJ 384 , wherein the issuance of the second charge memo itself was admittedly the earlier charge memo that has been enquired and finality has been reached. In a similar circumstance, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandru in an unreported Judgment in D.Kannan Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. In W.P.No.13408 of 1998 dated 30.06.2008 similar stand has been followed. Hence, in view of the above judgments, the charge memo issued to the petitioner dated 28.07.2004 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. 17. It is submitted that in so far as the deputing of the petitioner for remaining part of the Tahsildhar Training in the District is concerned, it is submitted that sending him for a training as Tahsildhar for a District is not a promotion and it is only a qualification to be acquired before promotion to the said post. Admittedly the petitioner has undergone Deputy Tahsildhar Training and also served as Executive Magistrate for a period of six months and Police Training for one month and has completed major portion of the training and in the meanwhile based on the orders of the Head of Department, he was abruptly repatriated to his parent unit, which is impermissible in law. Moreover, as on date, the petitioner deputated for Tahsildhar training, was not facing any disciplinary proceedings, except the disciplinary proceeding which has already concluded and the report is available with the department. The charge memo issued to him relates to the year 2005, 2006 and 2008 will never become a bar for promotion and for sending him for Tahsildhar Training and also his promotion as Tahsildhar. The above issue was considered by the Hon'ble Court and reported in P. Chinnadurai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, C.T. & R. Department & Anr. Dated 15.09.2009, which is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. Hence, subsequent charge memos issued during 2005, 2006 & 2008 will be of no consequence for deputing the petitioner to complete the further course of training of Tahsildhar and promotion as such. State of Tamil Nadu, C.T. & R. Department & Anr. Dated 15.09.2009, which is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. Hence, subsequent charge memos issued during 2005, 2006 & 2008 will be of no consequence for deputing the petitioner to complete the further course of training of Tahsildhar and promotion as such. The relevant portion at Para 17 of the Judgment stated supra reads as follows... “17. It is relevant to point out that on the crucial date viz., 1.4.1999 for inclusion in the panel for District Registrar for the year 1999-2000 or on the date of consideration viz., 3.4.2003 or the date of actual promotion to the petitioner's junior viz., 30.4.2003, there was no charge memo pending, except, of course, the criminal case which subsequently ended in acquittal on 26.12.2007. In such circumstances, merely because a second charge memo was issued on 17.11.2008 by cancelling the earlier charge memo dated 28.4.2004, it does not mean that the petitioner will be losing his right of being considered for inclusion in the panel for the year 1999-2000 for District Registrar, if he is otherwise suitable. That was also the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of R. Jayasimha Babu, J. And F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., in the unreported judgment in W.P.No.21007 of 2001 (The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government and another v. C. Nagappan and another) by judgment dated 28.2.2002 and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “The legal position remaining thus, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioners would contend that though the panel related to the year 1995, the drawal of the same was made only on 31.12.1996, that on 2.12.1996 yet another charge sheet came to be issued to the first respondent herein and in the circumstances, since as on the actual date of drawal of the list, i.e., on 31.12.1996 there was a charge memo pending as against the first respondent, by virtue of the amended order to Rule 17(b), the name of the first respondent was not rightly included in the promotion panel for Forest Rangers. We are unable to accept the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact though this contention was very much available with the petitioners, the same was not raised before the Tribunal. We are unable to accept the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact though this contention was very much available with the petitioners, the same was not raised before the Tribunal. In any event, when admittedly, the panel related to the year 1995 and when even according to the petitioners themselves, the consideration of the various Foresters, who were appointed up to 31.12.1994 with reference to whom alone, service particulars were called for by the proceedings dated 3.8.1995 for the purpose of the drawal of panel for promotion during the year 1995, the present stand of the petitioners that irrespective of the said factual position, the subsequent charge memo issued on 2.12.1996 should also be taken into account, and thereby delete the name of the 1st respondent from the drawal of the panel of the year 1995 is not only not justified but cannot be said to be an action, which is in consonance with law. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court that when once the disciplinary proceedings in the earlier enquiry ended in favour of the alleged delinquent, the said subsequent action cannot come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the earlier Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection.” It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the writ petition by quashing the charge memo issued to the petitioner dated 28.04.2004 and consequential directions to the respondents to depute the petitioner for training as Tahsildhar in Thiruvallur District and grant him promotion as Tahsildhar with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 18. The very competent Additional Government Pleader Mr. M.S. Ramesh submits that the petitioner and two others have committed irregularities for the grant of patta to an extent of Government lands 900 acres to the private premises Kazhanivasal Village of Karaikudi Taluk, hence a criminal case in Crime No.386 of 2005 has been registered on the file of Karaikudi Police Station. Likewise the petitioner and two others have committed serious irregularities and fabricated Government records in order to grant patta to an extent of 35 acres of Vaigai River's Poromboke land. Hence, another criminal case in Crime No.174 of 2005 has been registered on the file of Thirupachetty Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner is reverted to parental department. Likewise the petitioner and two others have committed serious irregularities and fabricated Government records in order to grant patta to an extent of 35 acres of Vaigai River's Poromboke land. Hence, another criminal case in Crime No.174 of 2005 has been registered on the file of Thirupachetty Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner is reverted to parental department. Further, the petitioner is not seeking any relief of challenging any of the proceedings of the first respondent, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner has committed several irregularities in order to grant patta to the third parties of the Government land as well as the lands belonging to Mandiragiri Velayutham Temple. Therefore, charge memos were issued for comprehensive enquiry. As such the disciplinary action had been initiated. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings is not a double jeopardy, further the criminal cases and charge memos were levelled against the petitioner on the basis of relevant Government records, as such all the impugned orders are fit to be proceeded with further for a proper conclusion. Hence, the very competent Additional Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 19. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that: (i) The respondent/The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had issued a charge memo on 28.07.2004 against the writ petitioner and two others stating that the petitioner had extended his co-operation for issuing patta, in favour of third parties, as such he had committed irregularities. The said order had been challenged before this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.26814 of 2004. This Court had admitted the writ petition on 21.09.2004 and stayed the said charge memo and also issued direction to relieve the petitioner from the office of the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Department and also permit him to join the training. As such, the petitioner has to complete his training as per this Court's judicial order. However, the fourth respondent had issued impugned order dated 21.12.2005 and reverted him to the parental department. This administrative order is running against this Court's judicial orders granted in WMP.Nos.32650 and 32651 of 2004 in W.P.No.26814 of 2004 dated 29.01.2004, since it is in force and operating. However, the fourth respondent had issued impugned order dated 21.12.2005 and reverted him to the parental department. This administrative order is running against this Court's judicial orders granted in WMP.Nos.32650 and 32651 of 2004 in W.P.No.26814 of 2004 dated 29.01.2004, since it is in force and operating. As such, the subsequent charge memos were issued to the petitioner by the respondents dated 25.08.2003, 03.09.2003, 03.06.2004, 28.07.2004 are running against this Court's judicial order. (ii) Before conducting domestic enquiry on the charge memos the respondent had registered two criminal cases in Crime No.386 of 2005 on the file of Karaikudi Police Station and Crime No.174 of 2005 on the file of Thirupachethy Police Station which is a pre-determination of the fourth respondent/District Collector, Thiruvallur. As such, the impugned order R.C.No.9770/2005/A3 dated 21.12.2005 is not fit to be proceeded with any further. (iii) The petitioner has completed his training period partially and he has to complete his entire training period since no charges have been proved against him, besides so far no comprehensive enquiry was made, under this circumstance the petitioner's training period was disturbed, hence the petitioner is put into hardship and lost his future prospects in his service. (iv) For granting patta in favour of third parties and court proceedings findings regarding issuance of patta the petitioner is not solely responsible. For issuing patta, the issuing authority has to verify the Revenue records and connected relevant records of the Government and determine the veracity of the civil rights over the said property. (v) If any irregularities committed by the patta issuing authorities, that has to be rectified before the concerned appellate authority and only them the charge memos will operate. 20. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent and the views 1 to 5 mentioned above, this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition. Consequently the impugned charge memo issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/4514/2003, dated 28.07.2004 is quashed the same and further direct the respondent to relieve the petitioner from the post of Superintendent and permit him to join the post of head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar at Thiruvellore Taluk Office for training and grant such other further relief. Accordingly ordered.