Judgment 1. The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ of Certoriari praying for issuance of an order by this Court, in calling for the records of the Third Respondent/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Madurai in connection with the impugned charge memo issued in Memo R.No.729/A2/2010 dated 05.04.2010 and to quash the same. 2. According to the Petitioner, he joined the service as a directly recruited Motor Vehicle Inspector, Gr-II on 10.08.1993 through a Selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. On 10.03.1998, he was upgraded as Gr-I Motor Vehicle Inspector. He was further promoted as Regional Transport Officer based on the direction given by this Court. 3. He served as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Gr-I at the Regional Transport Office, Madurai South from 18.03.2001. After 4 1/2 years of service, he was transferred to Regional Transport Office, Ooty by the Third Respondent/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Madurai and relieved on 17.02.2005. He joined the office of Regional Transport Office, Ooty on 18.02.2005. 4. He was issued with a charge memo by the Second Respondent/Commissioner of Transport, Chennai under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules for a delinquency said to have taken place at the Regional Transport Office, Madurai South on 25.10.2005. The charge memo contained as many as ten charges. On the said date, a surprise check was conducted by the appropriate Authorities and District Inspection Cell found some irregularities for which the Petitioner and other staff members were responsible without taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was not serving at the relevant time. The Petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.20376 of 2007 to quash the charge memo on the ground that he was not serving at the particular time and due to the same, his promotion was deferred and this Court on 14.06.2007 while admitting the Writ Petition, stayed the charge memo which was extended subsequently. 5. In the meanwhile, some of the co-delinquents approached this Court challenging the charge memo on the ground that higher official involved in the 'Delinquency' is the Regional Transport Officer whose appointing Authority is the Government and sought for quashing of the charge memo. This Court allowed the same and based on the order passed by this Court, the First Respondent/Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Chennai withdrew the charge memos. This Court allowed the same and based on the order passed by this Court, the First Respondent/Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Chennai withdrew the charge memos. The Government issued an order in G.O. (D) No.282 Home (Transport) Department dated 12.03.2008 for taking disciplinary action against the Petitioner and others under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules. In view of the Government Order, Petitioner along with others were issued with the charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D& A) Rules by the First Respondent/Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Chennai for the same set of allegations in Lr.No.38854/TR.II/2006/9 dated 12.03.2008. 6. Consequent to that, Rule 9(A) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules was amended during the year 2009 and it was decided that in a case of more than one official of the same department was involved, the Competent Authority to issue a charge memo in respect of each delinquent is the immediate superior officer and after conducting an enquiry, it would be sent to the Disciplinary Authorities to pass final orders. In view of the amendment made, Petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules by the Third Respondent/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Madurai on 05.04.2010 which was similar to that of the charge memos issued earlier by the Respondents 1 and 2. He submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges levelled against him for dropping further action stating that he was not serving on the date of raid conducted on 25.10.2005 but no orders were passed. 7. The Department proceeded against the Petitioner and 13 others. The co-delinquents viz., Kalyankumar, Ravichandran and Jayanthi filed W.P.Nos.11211/2009, 11212/2009 and 13680/2009, challenging the charge memo issued to them on the ground of vagueness, ambiguous and issued without any basis and to quash the same. This Court was pleased to quash the said Petitions and held that the charges are vague and there was a long delay in the initiation of the charge memo proceedings. Following the order of this Court, the Government passed an order in G.O.(2D) Nos.344 & No.234 Home (Transport II) Department respectively dated 18.04.2012 to drop further action in respect of delinquents Viz., Ravichandran and Jayanthi. Following the order of this Court, the Government passed an order in G.O.(2D) Nos.344 & No.234 Home (Transport II) Department respectively dated 18.04.2012 to drop further action in respect of delinquents Viz., Ravichandran and Jayanthi. Following the common order dated 04.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.13680/2009, 11211/2009 etc., co-delinquent one Mookan filed W.P.(MD)No.42511/2011 challenging the charge memo before the Madurai Bench of this Court and sought for quashing the same and on 13.10.2011, the Madurai Bench of this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo. 8. The stand of the Petitioner is that this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo in the aforesaid Writ Petitions on the ground that charges were vague, ambiguous and there was a long delay in the initiation of the charge memo proceedings and also charges against the co-delinquents were quashed and the order of this Court was implemented. 9. The plea taken by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that charges against the co-delinquents were quashed by this Court by order dated 04.03.2011 in W.P.No.11211/2009, 11212/2009 and 13680/2009 and Government had implemented the order and since the Petitioner is similarly placed, he is entitled to get the order of exoneration and shall be showered with the same relief as that of his co-delinquents who were issued with the charge memos containing the same set of allegations. 10. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner had been directed to appear before the Third Respondent/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Madurai for oral enquiry based on the charge memo issued to him. He further submitted that unless the said charge memo is quashed, the Petitioner would be put to an irreparable loss and untold hardship. 11. At this stage, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in Aid of the order dated 20.07.2012 in W.P.(MD) No.10386 of 2011 between A. Mookan and the Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Chennai & two others, wherein, in paragraphs 2 to 6 inter-lia observed and held as follows: "2.According to the petitioner, the second respondent issued a charge memo dated 16.11.2006 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.4521 of 2007 to quash those charges. 3. Later the same charges were issued by the first respondent in the charge memo dated 12.03.2008. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3083/2009. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.4521 of 2007 to quash those charges. 3. Later the same charges were issued by the first respondent in the charge memo dated 12.03.2008. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3083/2009. This Court on 13.10.2011 allowed those writ petitions and quashed the charges. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the charge memo dated 05.04.2010 issued by the third respondent is replica of those earlier charge memo. Hence, the charge memo is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader has not disputed the aforesaid submission on facts made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the earlier charge memo and the charge memo questioned here are containing identical and same charges. 6. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the charge memo is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs." 12. Likewise, in W.P.(MD)No.11388, 11952 & 11951 of 2012 dated 05.12.2013 between P. Muruganandam & two others and the State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Govt. & two others has passed the following order: "2. The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the order passed by this Court has become final and the same has also been given effect by the Government in G.O.(D) No.344 Home (Tr-II) Department, dated 18.04.2012. 3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court in an earlier occasion, this Court also followed the above said order in the subsequent order in W.P.(MD)No.5024 of 2011 dated 20.07.2012. 4. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.11211 and 11212 of 2009 etc., dated 04.03.2011. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 13. Further, in W.P.(MD)No.5024 of 2011 dated 20.07.2012 between S.Balasubramaniam and The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai & another allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the charge memo dated 05.04.2010 issued by the Second Respondent/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Madurai therein. 14. Per contra, the Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the charge memo dated 05.04.2010 issued by the Third Respondent to the Petitioner at the time of initial stage need not be quashed by this Court and it is open to him to take part in the Disciplinary proceedings and await for the outcome of the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. 15. 15. It is to be noted that "Judicial Review" is to be addressed to the decision making process. Whether or not the Competent Authority has before him the material for resorting to the decision making process is indeed an important consideration for Judicial Review at the threshold of enquiry and not after the employee had undergone the agony of sufferings and harassments. 16. Further, the issuance of charge sheet is a serious matter and the Competent Authority may issue a charge sheet only when he has taken into consideration the relevant materials which prima-facie indicates a case against delinquency and when he has come to a conclusion that it is necessary in public interest to go into the merits of allegations by issuing a formal charge sheet to an employee. 17. After all, a charge sheet for misconduct must disclose 1) the rules of conduct which an employee has violated, the allegations containing sufficient materials showing how a person has violated the specified rule of conduct and how he has been ex-facie found to be blame-worthy requiring his explanation and 2) the Disciplinary Rule under which the charges against him are required to be enquired into. Also, the charge sheet must contain a list of documents on the basis of which charges against him are proposed to be established and a list of witnesses for oral evidence. It cannot be gainsaid that the issuance of charge memo/charge sheet puts a question mark to an employee's career. 18. It cannot be ignored that whether a charge sheet in a given case is vague or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as per the decision in Hariprasad Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Others [AIR 1972 (Calcutta) 27] 19. In the decision of Union of India & others Vs. Lt. Colonel Jagdev Singh [1993 (2) SLR at page 460 and at Special page at 463] wherein, in para 11, Punjab And Haryana High Court (D.B.) has observed and held as follows: 11. On the face of it, no other conclusion is possible except that the second charge, as framed against Lt. Col. Jagdev Singh was vague and wholly lacking in material particulars. Further, the Court Martial fell gravely in error in denying him such particulars even when a specific request in this behalf has been made before it in writing by Lt. Col. Col. Jagdev Singh was vague and wholly lacking in material particulars. Further, the Court Martial fell gravely in error in denying him such particulars even when a specific request in this behalf has been made before it in writing by Lt. Col. Jagdev Singh. Prejudice on this account to Lt. Col. Jagdev Singh, thus, stands writ large and for this reason alone the proceedings of the Court Martial must stand vitiated and have, consequently to be quashed." 20. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suk Das and another Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh [AIR 1986 Supreme Court 991] wherein it is observed as follows: "Where the charges framed against the delinquent officer were vague and no allegations regarding it have been made by him before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, the fact that he has participated in the enquiry would not exonerate the department to bring home the charges. The enquiry based on such charges would stand vitiated being not fair." 21. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal [AIR 1971 Supreme Court at page 752 and at Special page 753] it is observed as follows: "Rule 55 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 whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations is to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defence. So, inspite of the Government servant repeatedly objecting to the vagueness of charges and non-furnishing of statement of allegations, the failure to supply him the facts, circumstances and particulars relevant to the charges even at the stage of second show cause notice would amount to denial of proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself in complete disregard of Rule 55." 22. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Sharif (Dead) Through LRs. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Sharif (Dead) Through LRs. [1982 (2) Supreme Court Cases at page 376 and at Special page 377] wherein, in para 3 it is observed and held as follows: "3. After hearing counsel appearing for the State, we are satisfied that both the appeal Court and the High Court were right in holding that the plaintiff had no reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges levelled against him and he was prejudiced in the matter of his defence. Only two aspects need be mentioned in this connection. Admittedly, in the charge sheet that was framed and served upon the plaintiff no particulars with regard to the date and time of his alleged misconduct of having entered Government Forest situated in P.C. Thatia District, Farrukhabad and hunting a bull in that forest and thereby having injured the feeling of one community by taking advantage of his service and rank, were not mentioned. Not only were these particulars with regard to date and time of the incident not given but even the location of the incident in the vast forest was not indicated with sufficient particularity. In the absence of these plaintiff was obviously prejudiced in the matter of his defence at the enquiry. Secondly, it was not disputed before us that a preliminary enquiry had preceded the disciplinary enquiry and during the preliminary enquiry statements of witnesses were recorded but copies of these statements were not furnished to him at the time of the disciplinary enquiry. Even the request of the plaintiff to inspect the file pertaining to preliminary enquiry was also rejected. In the face of these facts which are not disputed it seems to us very clear that both the first appeal Court and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the disciplinary enquiry; it cannot be gainsaid that in the absence of necessary particulars and statements of witnesses he was prejudiced in the matter of his defence. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted position it is difficult to accept the contention urged by the counsel for the appellant that the view taken by the trial Court should be accepted by us. We are satisfied that the dismissal order has been rightly held to be illegal, void and inoperative. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted position it is difficult to accept the contention urged by the counsel for the appellant that the view taken by the trial Court should be accepted by us. We are satisfied that the dismissal order has been rightly held to be illegal, void and inoperative. Since the plaintiff has died during the pendency of the proceedings the only relief that would be available to the legal heirs of the deceased is the payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments payable to the deceased." 23. In the decision of P.F. George Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ 1980 (1) LLJ 513 (Madras)] it is held that permitting the departmental proceedings to continue on stale, charges would be unfair and would involve violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 24. It cannot be denied that Petitioner is similarly situated like that of co-delinquents who obtained favourable orders in W.P.No.11211/2009, 11212/2009 and 13680/2009 dated 04.03.2011 and W.P.(MD)No.45211/2011 dated 13.10.2011. For the foregoing qualitative and quantitative discussion and when the Petitioner is similarly placed/situated like that of the aforesaid Petitioners (who filed the Writ Petitions mentioned supra), then this Court comes to an inevitable and irresistible conclusion that the said orders passed in the aforesaid Writ Petitions that is W.P.No.11211/2009, 11212/2009 and 13680/2009 dated 04.03.2011; W.P.(MD)No.45211/2011 dated 13.10.2011; W.P.No.10386 of 2011 dated 20.07.2012; W.P.5024 of 2011 dated 20.07.2011 and W.P.(MD)No.11388, 11952 & 11951 of 2012 dated 05.12.2013 squarely applies to him on all force. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner succeeds. 25. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order passed by the Third Respondent/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Madurai in Memo R.No.729/A2/2010 dated 05.04.2010 is hereby quashed for the reasons assigned by this Court in the present Writ Petition. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.