Judgment : 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.10.1981 in the Revenue Department. She was promoted as Assistant on 15.05.1991. She was included in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1998-1999. Based on the same, she was promoted as Special Deputy Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 31.10.2000. Simultaneously, her juniors were also promoted. 2. While so, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant by an order dated 04.07.2001 and she was relieved on 09.07.2001. 3. In those circumstances, the petitioner went on Earned Leave from 09.07.2001 to 31.07.2001 for 23 days, for which she made an application on 30.07.2001. This is the subject matter of the impugned charge memo dated 03.06.2002 of the first respondent. 4. Initially, a charge memo dated 03.06.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent under rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules about her leave from 09.07.2001 to 31.07.2001. 5. Subsequently, another charge memo dated 13.06.2003 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules reiterating the same allegations as alleged in the charge memo dated 03.06.2002. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3563 of 2003 seeking to quash the charge memos dated 03.06.2002 as well as 13.06.2003. 7. At the admission stage itself, the Tribunal passed a detailed interim order on 31.10.2003 setting aside the second charge memo dated 13.06.2003 and granted interim stay for the first charge memo dated 03.06.2002. 8. In the meantime, while the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant, her juniors were given promotion, leaving out the petitioner. The reversion order was challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently, contempt application was filed against the action of the District Collector that the petitioner's juniors were given promotion. When the Tribunal hauled up the District Collector, promotion given to the petitioner's juniors were withdrawn. 9. The Tribunal has noted in para 4 of the interim order dated 31.10.2003 as follows: “4........ Even while contesting the other O.A., reference was made to the applicant, entering on leave after reversion. When the Tribunal hauled up the District Collector, promotion given to the petitioner's juniors were withdrawn. 9. The Tribunal has noted in para 4 of the interim order dated 31.10.2003 as follows: “4........ Even while contesting the other O.A., reference was made to the applicant, entering on leave after reversion. It was also pointed out by myself while disposing the contempt application that Collector need not have taken exemption to the applicant going on leave after reversion because it is normal and in fact, Collector was able to get leave letters from number of Deputy Tahsildars with the help of which only he was able to provide opportunity to juniors who were promoted subsequently to the applicant. Therefore, there is no meaning in the collector trying to find fault with the applicant for going on leave and not joining the reverted post..........” It is also relevant to extract para 7 of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, which reads as follows: “7. Therefore, the second charge memo dated 13.6.2003 is set aside. Only the charge memo dated 3.6.2002 will have to be followed up and even for this since malafides are alleged, interim stay is granted......” 10. In view of the subsequent development granting promotion to the petitioner and more importantly taking note of the fact that 12 years have lapsed and also the charge is of a minor one, I am inclined to interfere with the charge memo dated 03.06.2002 also. It is also useful to note that the Tribunal found that the issuance of charge memo is a malafide action in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. It is now stated that in the year 2002, the petitioner was again promoted as Deputy Tahsildar and she was also further promoted as Tahsildar. 12. Taking into account all those facts, the impugned charge memo dated 03.06.2002 of the first respondent is also set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.