Order 1. The petitioner in W.P.No.27892 of 2013 – S.Ravichandran, Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner in W.P.No.27893 of 2013 – R.Ramachandran, Assistant Engineer, the petitioner in W.P.No. 27894 of 2013 – R.Balasubrahmanian, Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner in W.P.No.27895 of 2013 – A.Nachan, Assistant Executive Engineer and the petitioner in W.P.No.27896 of 2013 – N.Murugavel, Assistant Executive Engineer, who are working in Corporation of Chennai, have filed these writ petitions to quash the charge memos dated 21.12.2012 issued to them. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petitions, are as follows:- (a) While the petitioners were working as Assistant Executive Engineer / Assistant Engineer in the Corporation of Chennai, during the year 1998, tender was invited by the first respondent for construction of school buildings in different divisions of the corporation and the estimate was prepared by the Superintending Engineer, Buildings Department. After following the due process, the work was allotted to the registered contractors for execution of the construction work. The work was completed in time and there was no allegation either from the general public or from any other authority concerned like audit department, etc. The buildings are in good and sound condition and under usage as on date. The petitioners acted as per the estimation of the work and tender conditions. They verified with the materials used in the buildings and thereafter, made an entry in the 'M' book without any dereliction. (b) While such being the position, suddenly in the year 2002, it was alleged that the Grill and RTS rods used in the buildings are not in accordance with the estimation. Based on the said allegation, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department took a task and started investigation in respect of the school buildings alone and after a detailed investigation, they found that there was no irregularity or illegality in the construction work. Hence, they started investigation in respect of the other buildings, wherein also, they found that there was no irregularity. The have also found that there was no sufficient material to prove the allegations and as such, they dropped action and informed the same to the first respondent. Hence, they started investigation in respect of the other buildings, wherein also, they found that there was no irregularity. The have also found that there was no sufficient material to prove the allegations and as such, they dropped action and informed the same to the first respondent. But, the first respondent was not satisfied with the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and issued charge memos against the petitioners on 18.7.2007 under Rule 10(b) of the Madras Corporation Services (CCA) Rules, 1970 for other than the school buildings. After the receipt of the charge memos, the petitioners submitted their explanation. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and after full-fledged enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the non proven minute and in consultation with the Government, the first respondent dropped the charges on 19.8.2010. (c) Though the first respondent has dropped the charges in respect of the buildings other than school buildings, now the present charge memos dated 21.12.2012 were issued in respect of the construction of the school buildings alone. The present charge memos were issued by the first respondent with vague charges, only in order to defeat the petitioners' legitimate promotion. In the present charge memos, it has been stated that the petitioners have boosted the measurements in 'M' book. The said allegation is highly presumptive and improbable and without any basis. Hence, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions challenging the charge memos dated 21.12.2012. 3. The respondents have filed a common counter affidavit inter alia stating that charge memos were issued to the petitioners vide G.D.C.No.E1/26750/2012 dated 21.12.2012, for the irregularities noticed in the construction of school buildings, which were constructed before the year 2000. The Government vide G.O (D) No.3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME-4) Department, dated 2.1.2008 had recommended departmental enquiry as against the 17 Engineers in various capacities on the allegations that there are certain irregularities in the construction of the school buildings prior to the year 2000. The said Government Order was received in the office of the Corporation of Chennai only on 28.6.2012. Thereupon charges were framed under major penalty section as against all the delinquents mentioned the said G.O. Hence, there was a delay in initiating the disciplinary action. Charge memos were issued to the petitioners on 29.12.2012 and explanations were received from them. The said Government Order was received in the office of the Corporation of Chennai only on 28.6.2012. Thereupon charges were framed under major penalty section as against all the delinquents mentioned the said G.O. Hence, there was a delay in initiating the disciplinary action. Charge memos were issued to the petitioners on 29.12.2012 and explanations were received from them. One R.Kumaresan, the then Chief Engineer (General) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioners. However, the said Enquiry Officer retired from service on 31.5.2013 without conducting the enquiry. Now, one T.Anand, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner (Health) has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry in this case. The charge memos are specific in nature as it is clearly stated that there is a boosted measurement with respect to M.S.Grill, M.S.Steel Door and M.S.Grill Gate weights. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation. 5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the alleged delinquency is said to have taken place in the year 1998. On the alleged delinquency, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department took a task and started investigation and found that there was no irregularity or illegality. It was also found that there was no sufficient material to prove the allegations and thus, they dropped the action. But, the first respondent, not being satisfied with the action of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in dropping the investigation, initiated proceedings by issuing charge memos dated 18.7.2007 as against all the petitioners. On enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted not proven minute and hence in consultation with the Government, the first respondent dropped the charges on 19.8.2010 in respect of the buildings other than school buildings. But, subsequently, the first respondent purposely issued the present charge memos dated 21.12.2012 in respect of the school buildings. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the present charge memos are liable to be quashed on two grounds viz., (i) The impugned charge memos have been issued with an inordinate and unexplained delay. But, subsequently, the first respondent purposely issued the present charge memos dated 21.12.2012 in respect of the school buildings. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the present charge memos are liable to be quashed on two grounds viz., (i) The impugned charge memos have been issued with an inordinate and unexplained delay. (ii) The impugned charge memos are very vague and non-specific in nature, since the respondents have failed to mention about the main ingredients viz., what is the boosted measurement and in what basis the petitioners are responsible for that. Therefore, in the absence of any specific allegation, no disciplinary proceeding can be allowed to proceed. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to quash the impugned charge memos. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation submitted that the Government had recommended for disciplinary action against the petitioners vide an order in G.O (D) No.3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME-4) Department, dated 2.1.2008. The said Order was received by the first respondent only on 28.6.2012 and immediately after receipt of the said order, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. In the charge memos, it has been clearly stated that there was a boosted measurement with respect to M.S.Grill, M.S.Steel Door and M.S.Grill gate weight. Thus, he opposed for quashing the charge memos. 7. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 8. So far as the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the charge memos is concerned, from the materials placed on record, I find that while the petitioners were serving as Assistant Executive Engineer / Assistant Engineer in the year 1998, pursuant to the tender invited by the first respondent, construction work was allotted to the registered contractors for execution of the same. The construction work was in respect of school buildings and other than school buildings. In the year 2007, investigation was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on certain allegations and after investigation, they found that there was no sufficient material to prove the allegation and they dropped the investigation. Thereafter, the first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioners by issuing charge memos dated 18.7.2007 under Rule 10(b) of the Madras Corporation Services (CCA) Rules, 1970. The petitioners herein submitted their respective explanations. After full-fledged trial, the Enquiry Officer submitted not proven minute. Thereafter, the first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioners by issuing charge memos dated 18.7.2007 under Rule 10(b) of the Madras Corporation Services (CCA) Rules, 1970. The petitioners herein submitted their respective explanations. After full-fledged trial, the Enquiry Officer submitted not proven minute. Thereafter, the first respondent dropped the charges on 19.8.2010 in respect of the buildings other than school buildings. Now, the present charge memos were issued in respect of the school buildings stating that at the time of construction, the petitioners have boosted measurements in 'M' book and thereby created false records and committed irregularities. Therefore, it is clear that the present charge memos were issued in respect of the construction made prior to the year 2000. Even in the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that there was a delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The only reason that has been given for the said delay is that the Government Order in G.O (D) No.3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME-4) Department, dated 2.1.2008 was received by the first respondent only in the year 2012. Thereafter only, they could initiate the disciplinary proceedings. However, I find that even after issuance of the said Government Order dated 2.1.2008, there was a delay of four years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. It is apparent from the records that the present charge memos have been issued with a delay of 14 years. However, no proper explanation was given for the said delay. Hence, in my considered opinion, the impugned charge memos are liable to be quashed, since the same have been issued with an inordinate delay of 14 years, without offering any explanation for the said delay. 9. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 – P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "10. 9. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 – P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "10. 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. 11. Our attention was also drawn to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Board in this appeal. Though some explanation was given, the explanation offered is not at all convincing. It is stated in the counter affidavit for the first time that the irregularity during the year 1990, for which disciplinary action had been initiated against the appellant in the year 2000, came to light in the audit report for the second half of 1994-1995." 10. In yet another decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners reported in K.Kumaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu, by Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Chennai-9 and Another, wherein this Court has held as follows:- "6. The impugned charge memo dated 8.5.2004 was issued by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner in respect of the said alleged lapses relating to the period 1987-88. The Apex Court in the above said decision i.e. 2005-4-CTC-403 has held that the inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings would prejudice the public interest and the interest of the employee. In the case on hand, no explanation was offered by the Respondents for such an inordinate delay. 7. In this context, it is useful to refer the decision rendered by the Apex Court, in the case of State of Pujab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, reported in 1995-2-SCC-570, wherein it was held in paragraph 9, as under: 9. Now remain the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. Chaman Lal Goyal, reported in 1995-2-SCC-570, wherein it was held in paragraph 9, as under: 9. Now remain the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. 8. In another decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P Vs. N.Radhakrishna (1998-4-SCC-154), it has been held in paragraph 19 as under: 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 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. 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." Keeping the dictum laid down in the above decisions in mind, I am of the opinion, allowing the department to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after an inordinate delay would be prejudicial to the petitioners, particularly when there is no convincing explanation from the side of the respondents for the said inordinate delay. Moreover, I find that in the present case, charges have been dropped in respect of the buildings other than school buildings as early as on 19.8.2010 itself. Further, no explanation is available on record to take a different view by the respondents to issue charge memos in respect of school buildings, that too, with the inordinate delay of 14 years. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the charges are liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. 11. Secondly, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the charges are very vague and non-specific in nature and hence, they are liable to be quashed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the charges are liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. 11. Secondly, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the charges are very vague and non-specific in nature and hence, they are liable to be quashed. On a perusal of the statement of charges proposed to be framed against the petitioners, I find that in all the charges, it has been simply mentioned as follows:- In W.P.No.27892 of 2013:- " ... under his close supervision, recorded boosted measurements for RTS rods in RCC door lintel, main beam & Roof slab, M.S.door, M.S grill work and M.S. Grill gate used in the work in the Measurement Book relating to this work, and it disclosed an over payment of Rs.39, 561.83 and thereby committed irregularities and malpractices and created false records and caused loss of Rs.39,561.83 to the Corporation of Chennai". In W.P.No.27893 of 2013:- " ... under his close supervision, recorded the boosted measurements for M.S grill, M.S. Door and M.S. Grill gate used in the work in the Measurement Book relating to this work, and it disclosed an over payment of Rs.26,618.90 and thereby committed irregularities and malpractices and created false records and caused loss of Rs.26,618.90 to the Corporation of Chennai". In W.P.No.27894 of 2013:- " ... under your close supervision, recorded boosted measurements for steel shutters for doors, windows and steel grills used in the work in the Measurement Book relating to this work, and it disclosed an over payment of Rs.1,18,440/- and thereby committed irregularities and malpractices and created false records and caused loss of Rs.1,18,440/- to the Corporation of Chennai". In W.P.No.27895 of 2013:- " ... under his close supervision, recorded boosted measurements for steel shutters of doors, steel grills and steel shutter for windows and R.T.S. Rods in R.C.C. Slab used in the work in the Measurement Book relating to this work, and it disclosed an over payment of Rs.21,451.90 and thereby committed irregularities and malpractices and created false records and caused loss of Rs.21,451.90 to the Corporation of Chennai ..." In W.P.No.27896 of 2013:- " ... under their close supervision, recorded boosted measurements for RTS rods in RCC lintel beam & roof slab, M.S door, M.S grill work and M.S grill gate used in the work in the Measurement Book relating to this work, and it disclosed an over payment of Rs.64,620.29 and thereby committed irregularities and malpractices and created false records and caused loss of Rs.64,620.29 to the Corporation of Chennai". In the above charges, I do not find any specific averment about the boosted measurement entries or about the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners. Further, in Annexure IV - the list of witnesses, it has been shown as 'Nil'. Therefore, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the charges are very vague in nature. Moreover, from Annexure-IV of charge memos, I find that no witness has been cited to speak about the said charges. 12. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners made in W.A.No.587 of 2008 dated 3.7.2008, wherein, in para 3, it has been held as follows:- "3. Apart from that, have looked into the records. The charges framed against the writ petitioner are totally vague. The charges are set out hereunder :- Charge : 1 Negligence of duty and not handed over 4703.450 kg of Sandalwood and caused loss to Government. Charge : 2 Not handed over the Government records and forest produce and caused loss to Government. Charge : 3 Not handed over the valuable sandalwood by sustaining loss to Government and dereliction of duty. Though this question of vagueness in charges was not canvassed before the writ court, but sitting in appeal, we can look into the records since this is a certioari proceeding and we can find out whether the Departmental proceeding was proceeding on a legal and valid basis. 4. Looking into the records, we find that on such vague charges, no departmental proceeding can be held inasmuch as no one can defend such vague charges. This aspect has been considered by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision rendered in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. State of West Bengalreported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 752 [see para.4] : 4.... 4. Looking into the records, we find that on such vague charges, no departmental proceeding can be held inasmuch as no one can defend such vague charges. This aspect has been considered by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision rendered in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. State of West Bengalreported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 752 [see para.4] : 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. 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. ... The entire proceedings show a complete disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 in so far as it lays down in almost mandatory terms that the charges must be accompanied by a statement of allegations. We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of allegations containing the material facts and particulars not having been supplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing the suit. Following the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthanreported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 995, held that 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 [see para.14] : 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." From the dictum laid down in the above said judgment, it could be seen that if the charges are vague, it is difficult to meet out the charges by the delinquent. Unless the charges are specific, it is not possible for the delinquent to defend himself. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the impugned charge memos are liable to be quashed not only on the ground of inordinate delay but also on the ground of vagueness. 13. Further, pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the buildings in question were inspected by the Superintending Engineer, Buildings Department on 17.10.2013 and a status report about the status and condition of the buildings was filed before this Court and the said report would show that the buildings in question are in sound condition. 14. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned charge memos dated 21.12.2012 issued against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed and all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.