(1.) Writ petition challenges the impugned charge memo issued by the respondent against the petitioner dated 21.06.2001.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
(3.) As per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the respondent on 06.09.1997, in respect of the employees against whom the disciplinary proceedings initiated are pending, they were not to be considered. However, the application for the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement dated 25.09.1997 came to be accepted and the petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily under the scheme on 30.04.1998 and he was relieved from service on 01.06.1998 and the gratuity and provident fund due to him were also settled. However, as per the scheme, the amount due to him under Voluntary Retirement Scheme has not been paid to him, inspire of several representations made by the petitioner. In the mean time, the respondent has issued the impugned charge memo on 21.06.2001 making certain charges against the petitioner in respect of some of the incidents stated to have been taken place between the years 1976 and 1989. The challenge of the impugned charge memo is that the same has been issued after allowing the petitioner to retire from service and the service rules governing the employees of the respondent Corporation does not provide any provision to proceed with or to initiate any fresh disciplinary proceedings after allowing the employees to be relieved on Voluntary Retirement Scheme, by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court"State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Karuppiah,2005 3 CTC 4". Secondly, in respect of the acts stated to have been committed between the years 1976 and 1989, charge memo has been issued in 2001 and therefore, it is a belated one and in the absence of the proper explanation of delay on the part of the employer, the charges are prejudicial to the petitioner, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 4 CTC 403.