ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016 and further directing the respondents to give benefits inclusive of promotion. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Junior Assistant in the Mailam Panchayat Union on 27.02.1985 on compassionate appointment, on account of the sudden death of his deceased father, who served as a social welfare worker in the said department. Later his services were regularized after the completion of one year and which was declared in the year 1986. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant on 08.10.1993, later to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer on 08.07.2019 at Olakkur Panchayat Union. The petitioner is serving as Deputy Block Development Officer, Vanur Panchayat Union as on date of filing of the writ petition. A charge memo was initially issued by the first respondent along with the Block Development Officer, Manager and Accountant on 28.10.1997 vide Proceedings No.Rc.9479/97/VCII-1, the same was cancelled vide G.O.[1D]No.102, dated 27.02.2003 pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 dated 01.11.2001. Thereafter, a second charge memo dated 01.11.1999 was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner. Subsequently, the enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was passed with an order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by the second respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charges framed against the petitioner are that while functioning as a Junior Assistant in Mylam Panchayat Union during the period from 27.05.1985 to 31.07.1988, the petitioner was in connivance with the Block Development Officer in the purchase of spares at exorbitant rates in contravention of the departmental orders without verifying the market rates, thereby instrumental in causing monetary loss to the panchayat Union. The petitioner is not the authority to float tenders and purchase materials, as it is primarily vested with the Commissioner as well as the panchayat union council. 4. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner absolutely has no knowledge about the sanction accorded by the Commissioner and the decision taken by the Panchayat Union Council to purchase the materials from the various co-operative institutions. 4. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner absolutely has no knowledge about the sanction accorded by the Commissioner and the decision taken by the Panchayat Union Council to purchase the materials from the various co-operative institutions. The petitioner was not a party to any of the file note and the petitioner does not have absolute access to the decision taken by the BDO. Aggrieved by the issue of the charge memo dated 28.10.1997, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal [as it was then] to quash the charge memo issued by the first respondent. The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, by order dated 01.11.2001, allowed the Original Application filed by the petitioner by quashing the charge memo dated 28.10.1997. The first respondent accepted the findings rendered in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 and ultimately issued G.O.[1D]No.102 dated 27.02.2003 implementing the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and consequently dropped further action on the charge memo dated 28.10.1997. 5. While being so, the second respondent herein issued another charge memo on the same set of facts during the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceedings in Rc.No.5448/98/PA5 dated 01.11.1999 alleging that from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989 the petitioner has abetted and aided the Block Development Officer in the purchase of power pumps spares in contravention to the departmental orders without verifying the then prevailing market rates and thereby he had been instrumental in causing monetary loss in Mailam Panchayat Union. It is seen that along with the petitioner, the same set of charges has been framed against two of his superior officials, i.e., Deputy Block Development Officer and Accountant. The second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer vide Roc.No.15919/2004/PA5 dated 10.08.2005 to enquire into the charges and submit a report. 6. It is further submitted that the above charges were nothing but a replica of earlier 12 charges framed against the petitioner by the first respondent in Roc.No.9479/97/VC11-1 dated 28.10.1997. Though the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue a second charge memo on the same set of facts, the petitioner submitted his explanations to the charge memo on 30.80.2005, repudiating the allegations, and reiterated the earlier charge memo issued by the first respondent. In fact, no approval was given by the first respondent to issue a second charge memo during the pendency of the first disciplinary proceedings. 7. In fact, no approval was given by the first respondent to issue a second charge memo during the pendency of the first disciplinary proceedings. 7. Furthermore, one of the delinquent employees approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5929 of 2006 for quashing the charge memo on the ground of inordinate delay, and this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and the charge memo dated 01.11.1999 was quashed. 8. Thereafter, the enquiry officer enquired into the matter and submitted the report on 22.01.2007, holding that the charges were proved, ignoring the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.10628/98 dated 1.11.2001 and also the G.O.[1D]No.102 dated 27.02.2003, issued by the Government. It clearly shows that there is absolutely no application of mind on the part of the Enquiry officer. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner immediately submitted his representation to the second respondent on 22.08.2013. The second respondent being a disciplinary authority, ought to have examined the records before imposing the punishment. On the other hand passed a cryptic order vide Na.Ka.No.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016. 9. It is further submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent is totally by non application of mind and the disciplinary authority had not followed any of the laws laid down by this Court in a catena of judgment. The disciplinary authority having framed charges alleging abetment with the BDO, Manager and Accountant, ought to have seen that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the allotment of tender to purchase materials. 10. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016 before the first respondent on 24.01.2017 and as on the date of filing of the writ petition three years have lapsed and as on date 7 years have lapsed but no orders have passed till now and it is nothing but an empty formality to await the decision from the first respondent. 11. Learned counsel would then place reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5721 of 2023 in the case of State of U.P. & Another Vs. Eshan & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 887. 12. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf the second respondents dated 07.08.2020. 13. 11. Learned counsel would then place reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5721 of 2023 in the case of State of U.P. & Another Vs. Eshan & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 887. 12. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf the second respondents dated 07.08.2020. 13. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai, issued a charge memo No:9479/97/VC.II dated 28.10.1997 and twelve charges were framed against the writ petitioner. In G.O.[1D].No. 102 RD(E3) Department dated 27.02.2003, the above mentioned charges were dropped based on the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal order passed in O.A.No.10628 of 1998, dated 01.11.2001. Hence, charges framed against the petitioner have been dropped. Thereafter, the District Collector, Viluppuram, in his proceedings No:PA5/5448/98 dated 01.11.1999, framed another set of three charges under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner for the monetary loss caused to the Government when he was working as Junior Assistant in the Mailam Panchayat Union Office from 17.05.1985 to 19.05.1989. 14. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that two different charge memos were issued to the petitioner. The first one against the petitioner was framed by the first respondent and the second one against the petitioner was framed by the second respondent. Both the charges were different and involving different vouchers of purchase. Though the occurrence of irregularity took place in the same station, the purchase voucher numbers are different and the materials were purchased at two different times. Therefore, two charge memos were framed by both the respondents, which are not one and the same and hence require separate proceedings according to the merit and severity of the irregularity. 15. The charge against the petitioner is that while he was working as Accountant in the O/o.Mailam Panchayat Union during the period from 12.01.1985 to 25.06.1986, has abetted and aided the Block Development Officer in the purchase of power pump spares worth Rs.1,11,865/- covering Vr.No.174/11.6.80 from M/s. Karunamurthy stores, Cuddalore in contravention to the departmental orders, without verifying the then prevailing market rates and thereby he had been instrumental in causing monetary loves Rs.77,303.50 to the Government in Mailam Panchayat Union with intention to gain pecuniary advantage for himself and other and also failed to safeguard the financial interest of the Panchayat union. 16. Being the fact, the petitioner when working as Accountant in Mailam Panchayat union during the period from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989 has abetted and aided the Block Development Officer in the purchase of power pump spares worth Rs.66,075/- covering Vr.No.334/6.6.86 from M/s Gajalakshmi Steel Traders, Cuddalore in contravention to the departmental orders without verifying the then prevailing market rates and thereby he had been instrumental in causing monetary loss of Rs.45,042/- to Mailam Panchayat Union with intention to gain pecuniary advantages for himself and also failed to safeguard the financial interest of the Panchayat union. Thus, the petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby he had violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules , 1973. 17. It is further submitted that the above "three charges" were framed against the individual by the District Collector, Viluppuram. As per the procedures laid down in the rules, immediately Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges, and he was directed to submit his findings. The said enquiry Officer submitted his findings and stated that all the three charges were "proved". The District Collector, Viluppuram, based on the enquiry report has passed final orders as mentioned hereunder: 18. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the orders issued in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunals dated 01.11.1999 is pertaining to the charge memo issued by the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai, vide charge memo 9479/97/VC II.1, dated 28.10.1997. Whereas the present charge memo of the District Collector, Viluppuram, is another set of charges that is in no way connected to the earlier one. 19. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 20. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5721 of 2023 in the case of State of U.P & Another Vs. Eshan & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 887, held as follows: “28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. Eshan & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 887, held as follows: “28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.” In view of the above judgment, this Court is not inclined to relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy which he has already availed but no order passed for the last 7 years. 21. In the case on hand, the first charge memo was issued to the petitioner dated 28.10.1997 and the allegation is that while the petitioner was functioning as Junior Assistant in the Mailam Panchayat Union during the period from 27.05.1985 to 31.07.1988 he was in connivance with the Block Development Officer in the purchase of spares at exorbitant rates in contravention of the departmental orders without verifying the market rates, thereby instrumental in causing monetary loss to the panchayat Union. 22. It is pertinent to note that he was not the authority to float tenders and purchase materials, as it was primarily vested with the Commissioner as well as the panchayat union council. The above said charge memo dated 28.10.1997 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.10628 of 1998 and the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2001 was pleased to quash the charge memo and allow the original application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent accepted the findings rendered in O.A.No.10268 of 1998 and ultimately issued G.O.[1D]No.102, dated 27.02.2003 implementing the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and consequently dropped further action on the charge memo dated 28.10.1997. 23. The above said charge memo was issued by the first respondent and the same stands quashed in view of the above said order passed by the Tribunal. 23. The above said charge memo was issued by the first respondent and the same stands quashed in view of the above said order passed by the Tribunal. While so, the second respondent herein issued another charge memo on the same set of facts during the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceedings in Rc.No.5448/98/PA5 dated 01.11.1999 alleging that from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989, the petitioner has abetted and aided the block development officer in the purchase of power pump spares in contravention to the departmental orders without verifying the then prevailing market rates and thereby he has been instrumental in causing monetary loss in Mailam Panchayat Union. The same set of charges has been framed against two of his superior officials, i.e., Deputy Block Development Officer, and Accountant. The second respondent appointed an enquiry officer vide Roc.No.15919/2004/PA5 dated 10.08.2005 to enquire into the charges and submit a report. 24. It is pertinent to note that the second charge memo issued by the second respondent is just a replica of the earlier charge memo issued by the first respondent. The first charge memo is pertaining to the period from 27.05.1985 to 31.07.1988 and the second charge memo is for the period from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989. 25. There were 12 charges framed against the petitioner in the first charge memo. In the second charge memo, there were 3 charges framed against the petitioner, and they are just a replica of the charges in the first charge memo. First Charge Memo Second Charge Memo Charge No.1 Charge No.1 - replica of the same Charge No.1 of first charge memo Charge No.2 Charge No.2 - replica of the same Charge No.2 of first charge memo Charge No.12 Charge No.3 - replica of Charge No.12 of first charge memo 26. It is pertinent to mention that the first set of charges and the charges in the second charge memo are the replica of the first charge memo. 27. There is a slight difference in regard to the period of the second charge memo. The first charge memo is pertaining to the period from 27.05.1985 to 31.07.1988 and the second charge memo is pertaining to the period from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989. 27. There is a slight difference in regard to the period of the second charge memo. The first charge memo is pertaining to the period from 27.05.1985 to 31.07.1988 and the second charge memo is pertaining to the period from 17.05.1985 to 15.05.1989. The period is just 10 days before the first charge memo and the period ending in the second charge memo is 15.05.1989 and in the first charge memo is 31.07.1988, so the difference in the period is 10 months. 28. The only difference between Charge No.1 in the first charge memo and Charge No.1 in the second charge memo is that the first charge memo is regarding voucher No.175 dated 12.06.1986 and in the second charge memo, Charge No.1 is in regard to voucher No.174 dated 11.06.1986. Except this, the entire set of charges in the first charge memo as well as in the second charge memo are one and the same. 29. The second respondent failed to note that the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 categorically held that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and consequently, the charges framed against the petitioner were quashed and the Original Application was allowed on 01.11.2001. 30. It is pertinent to mention the relevant portion of the order in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 dated 01.11.2001: “This applicant being the Junior Assistant could not be held responsible either for placing the purchase order or for fixing the price and he would not also have indended for the purchase of articles. The charge memo generally implicates the applicant as an abetted without assigning any overtact. Therefore, no useful purpose will be arrived by allowing the departmental proceedings against this applicant.” “The charge memo generally implicates the applicant as an abettor without assigning any overact. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the departmental proceedings against this applicant. In the result, Original Application was allowed and the charge memo was quashed.” 31. It is also pertinent to note that the criminal case foisted against the petitioner along with four others ended in the Hon'ble Acquittal in Spl.C.C.Nos.17 and 18 of 1999 dated 25.11.2011. 32. The first charge memo dated 28.10.1997 was issued by the first respondent and the second charge memo dated 01.11.1999 was issued by the second respondent, District Collector, Villupuram District. 32. The first charge memo dated 28.10.1997 was issued by the first respondent and the second charge memo dated 01.11.1999 was issued by the second respondent, District Collector, Villupuram District. The set of charges in the first charge memo as well as in the second charge memo is one and the same and since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has already quashed the first charge memo this Court is unable to understand how the second charge memo for the same set of charges can be issued that too by two different Authorities, namely, the District Collector (2 nd respondent) and the Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department (1 st respondent) for the same set of charges. In the period between the first charge memo and the second charge memo, there is a difference of only 10 months between the first charge memo and the second charge memo, i.e., only in regard to the ending period, in the first charge memo it is 31.07.1988 and in the second charge memo it is up to 15.05.1989, and the difference is only 10 months, but the charges are one and the same, and the second charge memo issued by the District Collector, Villupuram dated 01.11.1999 is unwarranted and without jurisdiction. 33. The petitioner was only a Junior Assistant and is not an Officer and he could not be held responsible either for placing the purchase order or for fixing the price as rightly observed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal while quashing the first charge memo by order dated 01.11.2001. 34. It is also pertinent to note that the counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent on his behalf and also on behalf of the first respondent, who has issued the first charge memo dated 28.10.1997, which has been quashed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.10628 of 1998 dated 01.11.2001. When the second charge memo is the replica of the first charge memo dated 28.10.1997, which was issued by the first respondent, it is unfortunate that the counter affidavit has be filed by the second respondent on behalf of the first respondent. 35. It is also pertinent to mention that the second charge memo issued by the District Collector, Villupuram, dated 01.11.1999, was challenged by the similarly placed persons and the same was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.5929 of 2006 dated 20.11.2014, and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “5. 35. It is also pertinent to mention that the second charge memo issued by the District Collector, Villupuram, dated 01.11.1999, was challenged by the similarly placed persons and the same was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.5929 of 2006 dated 20.11.2014, and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “5. It is admitted that no final order is passed on the charge memo dated 01.11.1999. As stated above, charge memo was issued after 13 years of the alleged occurrence. The matter is pending for the past 15 years. When the matter came up for admission before the Tribunal, no stay was granted by the Tribunal. But for reasons best known, no final order is passed even after 15 years. On this sole ground, the impugned charge memo is liable to interfered with.” 36. Learned Government Advocate on written instructions from the PA(Development) to the District Collector, Villupuram, has stated that no appeal has been preferred against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5929 of 2006, and the same has reached finality. It is also submitted before this Court that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer by the District Collector, Villupuram, vide proceeding Roc.No.PA4/2313/2019-1 dated 03.07.2019. 37. The second charge memo dated 01.11.1999 was issued to the petitioner after 13 years of the alleged occurrence. The punishment imposed by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 28.11.2016 is stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. 38. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has preferred an appeal dated 24.01.2017 challenging the order of the second respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by its order dated 28.11.2016. In this regard, the Block Development Officer Panchayat Union, Olakur, has written a letter dated 24.01.2017 to the District Collector (Development), Villupuram District, stating that the appeal to the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department was received from the petitioner and is herewith forwarded for appropriate action. The said appeal is pending for the last 7 years and no final orders have been passed till date. 39. The second respondent ignored the findings of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and also the G.O.[1D] No.102 dated 27.02.2003 issued by the Government. It clearly shows that there is absolutely no application of mind on the part of the second respondent. 40. 39. The second respondent ignored the findings of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and also the G.O.[1D] No.102 dated 27.02.2003 issued by the Government. It clearly shows that there is absolutely no application of mind on the part of the second respondent. 40. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.01.2017 is still pending for three years as on the date of filing of the writ petition and at present it is pending for the last 7 years. 41. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5929 of 2006, the order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.PA5/3500/2016 dated 28.11.2016 is liable to be quashed accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to give all monetary and other benefits inclusive of promotion within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 42. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with the above observations and direction. No costs.