JUDGMENT : The charge memo dated 11.6.2014, issued by the respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was working as Inspector of Labour, Salem District and he was given Additional charge for the post of Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme) in the Tamil Nadu Construction Workers Welfare Board on 21.12.2010. The Tamil Nadu Construction Board was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1994 in exercise of the powers conferred on the State under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of work) Act, 1982. When the writ petitioner was working as Labour Officer on deputation (Social Secretary Scheme), certain irregularities took place and the charge memo was issued against him in proceedings dated 11.06.2014, after the relieving of the petitioner from the deputed post. The charges against the writ petitioner are as under : “TAMIL” 3. Annexure 2 of the charge memo denotes the statement of misconduct and imputations. Annexure 3 provides list of documents and this apart the other details regarding the allegations were also enclosed along with charge memo. 4. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 11.6.2014. The charge memo is challenged solely on the ground that the respondent, who issued memorandum of charges, is an incompetent authority as per the Rules. The petitioner is a permanent employee of the Labour and Employment Department. Therefore, the borrowed organisation cannot issue any charge memo against the writ petitioner. It is contended that the respondent is not a disciplinary authority so as to invoke Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as far as the writ petitioner is concerned. 5. The learned Counsel for the Writ petitioner strenuously contented that even Rule 16(A) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules do not prescribe that the borrowed authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings after relieving the official from their control. In other words the sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner served in the borrowed department in between 2010 and 2013, thereafter, he was relieved from the office of the respondent and joined in his parent department viz., Labour and Employment Department. In other words the sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner served in the borrowed department in between 2010 and 2013, thereafter, he was relieved from the office of the respondent and joined in his parent department viz., Labour and Employment Department. After rejoining in the parent department, the borrowed department cannot have any authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings is the point raised in this writ petition. 6. In respect of merits, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the same at this point of time and it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation / objections in respect of all the allegations and participate in the enquiry proceedings to prove his innocence. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11258 of 2013 dated 19.04.2013, wherein it has been observed that Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules also lays down the procedure to be followed, where the service of a person to be punished has been lent to another authority. Therefore, the power of the second respondent to frame charges cannot be questioned, though it would be a different matter, when it comes to the question of passing final orders. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General is of the view that Rule 16 A empowers the borrowed department to initiate disciplinary proceedings and conduct such proceedings as per necessity and thereafter, send the files to the appointing authority / disciplinary authority for consideration and for passing final order in the disciplinary proceedings. It is emphasized by the learned Additional Advocate General that initiation cannot be questioned since Rule 16A provides power to the borrowed Department also even if an employee is relieved from the borrowed Department. It is further stated that the allegations set out in the charge memo are in accordance with the Rules and they relate to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner, when he was working in the borrowed department namely office of the respondent. Thus, all the files will be available only in the office of the respondent and therefore, initiation ought to have been only by the respondent. This apart the respondent alone will be competent to frame the charges since, they will be well versed with the activities and other happenings in the department. Thus, all the files will be available only in the office of the respondent and therefore, initiation ought to have been only by the respondent. This apart the respondent alone will be competent to frame the charges since, they will be well versed with the activities and other happenings in the department. Though the very object of the Rules is to provide powers to the borrowed department to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and conduct such proceedings necessarily for the purpose of continuing the disciplinary proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the rule is unambiguous that the borrowing authority is empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings only if the employee is working under their control. Once the deputed employee relieved from the borrowed department, then, the authority borrowed, cannot initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the above rule. Thus, it is clear that the power of initiation of disciplinary proceedings are granted so long as the employee is under the control of the borrowed department and not otherwise. In the case of the writ petitioner, the impugned charge memo was issued after relieving the petitioner from the deputed department and therefore, the respondents are incompetent to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 10. Now, this Court has to consider the sole ground raised by the petitioner in respect of the jurisdiction of the respondent for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. 11. Rule 16 A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules which reads as follows: "Where a member of the Civil Service of the State or a person holding a civil post under the State, whose services are placed at the disposal of any Company, Corporation, Organization or Local Authority has, at any time before his services were so placed committed any act or omission which renders him liable to any penalty specified in Rule 8, the authority competent under Rule 14 to impose any such penalty on such member or person shall alone be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against him and to impose on him such penalty specified in Rule 8 as it thinks fit and the borrowing authority under whom he is serving at the time of the institution of such proceedings, shall be bound to render all reasonable facilities to such competent authority instituting and conducting such proceedings." 12. This Court, has to consider the purpose and object of the rules. This Court, has to consider the purpose and object of the rules. The whole idea for providing such power to the competent officials of the borrowed Department is that an employee cannot be allowed to escape from the clutches of the disciplinary proceedings, if any misconduct is found to have been committed during his tenure on deputation. This apart if an employee continues his misconduct during the course of performance, even he was on deputation, he should not be allowed to escape from the disciplinary proceedings, even after relieving from the office in which he was working on deputation. This court has to consider the very purpose and the object of the Rules so as to provide interpretation. The Rule provides that the borrowing authority under whom the employee is serving at the time of institution of such proceedings shall be bound to draw all the reasons for initiation and conduct of the said proceedings. The Rule do not prevent the borrowed Department from initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the employee. The Rule is not clear in respect of institution of disciplinary proceedings against the employee who was relieved from the borrowed Department. In the absence of any specific provisions in this regard, this Court, has to adopt a balanced approach in respect of interpreting the Rules. In this case, the object also to be considered. A constructive interpretation is required otherwise the very object of the Rule will be defeated 13. The whole object of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules is to maintain discipline and good conduct for effective public administration. The Rules are constituted in order to maintain discipline amongst the public servant, who are all responsible for public administration. This being the purpose of the Rule, the harmonious interpretation of the Rule is imminent and this Court, cannot interpret it in such a way to allow a person to escape from the institution of the disciplinary proceedings on hyper technical grounds. 14(a) On a perusal of Rule 16(A), it is enumerated that the borrowed department is empowered to institute the disciplinary proceedings against an employee, who was deputed to their department. 14(a) On a perusal of Rule 16(A), it is enumerated that the borrowed department is empowered to institute the disciplinary proceedings against an employee, who was deputed to their department. Thus, the power of institution of disciplinary proceedings are certainly provided and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that such power can be exercised even after relieving from the post in view of the fact that the alleged irregularities or misconducts are committed in the deputed department and the deputed department alone will be capable of proceeding with the departmental disciplinary proceedings and they will be having the documents, files, evidences etc., in respect of the alleged misconducts, irregularities or illegalities. For instance, if any employee deputed to another department from his parent department, commits any misconduct on the last day or sometime before, when he was performing his duties and responsibilities, the question will arise, whether such a person can be allowed to escape from the clutches of the disciplinary proceedings. If at all, is it possible for the parent department to institute the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the allegations committed in the deputed department. Thus, a line is to be drawn and an interpretation in this regard is certainly warranted to remove the doubts and anomalys. This Court is of an undoubted opinion that the very object of the rule is to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee, who was deputed to other department from his parent department. When the sole object of the rule is to institute disciplinary proceedings against an employee, who was deputed, certainly it is to be construed that even after relieving from the deputed department, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings should be the authority from the deputed department and not from the parent department. In order to substantiate the said interpretation, this Court is of the view that the files, documents, evidences, witnesses in respect of the allegations or misconducts are only available with the deputed department and the intrecasis and technicalities in respect of the allegations or misconducts can be explained and a deliberation can be made in this regard only by the competent officials of the deputed department. Thus, the parent department cannot be well-versed with the nature of allegations and documents etc,. Thus, the parent department cannot be well-versed with the nature of allegations and documents etc,. Thus, it is necessary that in these kind of situations, the rule must be interpreted pragmatically so as to cover the cases where there are some ambiguity in respect of the language used in the provisions. (b) The writ petitioner may attempt to interpret the rules in such a way in order to escape from the clutches of the disciplinary proceedings. But, this Court has to see that the public servants, who have involved in certain irregularities, illegalities or misconducts, are to prove their innocence only in accordance with law and before the competent authorities by participating in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The legal grounds, if raised, can be considered by this Court. However, certain hyper-technical grounds in respect of procedures and interpretations cannot be accepted by the Constitutional Courts and a constructive interpretation is certainly to be adopted in such circumstances. (c) In respect of the rule of constructive interpretation, the same is a method of legal interpretation that aims to find a normative unity in the diversity of rules that characterize a legal system. It is about finding the interpretation of a rule that fits in with the current legal system and is most justified according to ideals of fairness, justice, procedural due process and integrity. “Constructive Interpretation is a matter of imposing purpose on an object of practice in order to make of it the best possible example of the form or genre to which it is taken to belong.” Dworkin held that constructive interpretation can be divided into three stages. First stage is the “Pre-interpretive” stage in this stage a judge looks at all relevant rules and standards depending upon the available material. The second stage is the 'interpretive' stage in which the Judge settles on some general justification of the main elements of the practice identified in the pre-interpretive stage and the third stage is 'post interpretive', in this stage a Judge shall review his decision and ensure that it is in its best possible form and is coherent with the principles and rules of the legal structure. Constructive interpretation consists of Integrity, discretion and precedents, with each element playing an important role in making the judge reach the most desired decision. Constructive interpretation consists of Integrity, discretion and precedents, with each element playing an important role in making the judge reach the most desired decision. Law as integrity holds that when 'hard cases' come in front of a court, the judge has an obligation to recognize legal rights and duties on the assumption that they were all created by the community as an institution. Further, a concept of law can only be said to be true if it imbibes the principles of justice, fairness and procedural due process, a judge when deciding any new case shall enforce these as it would ensure that every person has a fair and just standing in front of the same standard. Dworkin holds that the inclusion of these principles will result in the finest constructive interpretation of the community's legal practice. Law as integrity states that the law must speak with one voice, so judges must assume that the law is structured on coherent principles about justice, fairness and procedural due process, and that in all fresh cases which comes before them, judges must enforce these so as to make each person's situation fair and just by the same standard-that is to say, treat everyone equally. The aspects of 'fit' and 'substance' play a vital role in his theory; 'fit' denotes that the new judgment shall be coherent with the already established law and 'substance' denotes the consistency to political morality, which is the moral underpinning of a large group acting as one. This method of interpretation involves three main elements: 1. Legal scholars can gain a better understanding of certain rules by conducting a constructive interpretation of them; in other words, by looking for the best interpretation of those rules, bearing in mind the dimensions of 'fit' and 'justification'; 2. Dworkin considers the principle of equal concern and respect as the leading notion that rules should always have to comply with. This principle can be seen as the foundation of all legal rules. The legal scholar should therefore keep this notion in mind when interpreting a certain legal practice; 3. When interpreting the relevant rules, the legal scholar must bear in mind the conception of law as integrity. This principle can be seen as the foundation of all legal rules. The legal scholar should therefore keep this notion in mind when interpreting a certain legal practice; 3. When interpreting the relevant rules, the legal scholar must bear in mind the conception of law as integrity. This not only indicates that law has to be seen as a consistent and coherent set of rules, but also implies that the interpreter has to view legal rules against the background of the current legal system so that the interpretation fits with the principles implied in the existing legal system. (d) In the present day world, complications are more, so also the corruption, more specifically, in public administration are at large. It is necessary to deal with such cases of corruption with iron-heart. Scientific way of committing corrupt activities are consistently growing and it is certainly very difficult for the investigating authorities to identify or establish such scientific way of corruptions. More deliberations and careful application of mind, intelligent way of investigation are highly required to cull out the truth behind such kind of allegations, more so, against the public servants. The ultimate purpose of the rule framed by the State in this regard is to see that no corrupt official or an employee committing misconducts are escaped from the process of disciplinary proceedings. The rule cannot be interpreted paving any way to the officials or corrupt officials committing misconducts to escape from the process of disciplinary proceedings. Thus, this Court is of an unambiguous view that if the allegations, misconducts, illegality or irregularity are relating to the deputed department, then, the competent officials of the deputed department are empowered to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against an employee, who was deputed and relieved subsequently. On initiation of disciplinary proceedings, they can proceed with the same and for passing of the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, they are bound to place the entire records along with the report to the appointing authority of the deputed officials. Thereafter, the appointing authority of the parent department is competent to pass final orders of the departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the records and materials available on record in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against such deputed officials. Thereafter, the appointing authority of the parent department is competent to pass final orders of the departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the records and materials available on record in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against such deputed officials. (e) In view of the reasons stated in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that there is no impediment or otherwise for the borrowed department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee who was on deputation and committed certain irregularities or misconducts or illegalities and relieved thereafter from the borrowed department. The procedure is to be followed is that the competent authority of the borrowed department shall institute the disciplinary proceedings based on the allegations, frame the charges, continue the proceedings in accordance with rules and send the files to the appointing authority of the delinquent official for taking final decision and passing orders in the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal)Rules, more so, in respect of imposition of penalty or exoneration. 15. In normal circumstances, no writ petition can be entertained against a charge memo and a judicial review in this regard is certainly limited. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the ground of jurisdiction in respect of the institution of disciplinary proceedings against a deputanist, the writ petition was entertained. However, Rule 16(A) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal)Rules is interpreted by this Court, by holding that the institution of the disciplinary proceedings against an employee who was deputed is also vested with the competent authorities of the borrowed department. In other words, the authority of the borrowed department is empowered to institute disciplinary proceedings even after the relieving of the deputed employee. In this view of the matter, it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation/objections in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memo and prove his innocence before the enquiry officer to be appointed for the purpose of conducting enquiry. Long delay in disposing the disciplinary proceedings will certainly cause prejudice to the delinquent employees. The competent authority on institution of a disciplinary proceedings to be conscious that the delay will cause prejudice and accordingly, conclude the proceedings as early as possible by providing opportunity to the delinquent officials as contemplated under the Rules. Long delay in disposing the disciplinary proceedings will certainly cause prejudice to the delinquent employees. The competent authority on institution of a disciplinary proceedings to be conscious that the delay will cause prejudice and accordingly, conclude the proceedings as early as possible by providing opportunity to the delinquent officials as contemplated under the Rules. Thus, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry proceedings in all respects in accordance with rules and accordingly, send the files to the appointing authorities/disciplinary authorities of the writ petitioner in his parent department for the purpose of taking a decision and for passing final orders in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Rules. This being the procedure to be followed, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication in respect of the merits raised in this writ petition deserves to be considered. Thus, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry proceedings in all respects within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the writ petitioner is also directed to cooperate for the completion of the enquiry proceedings by the respondents and if any non-cooperation on the part of the writ petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to record the same in the enquiry proceedings itself. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.