R. VENGADASSALAME Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, VILLIANUR COMMUNE PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner joined service on 1.3.1963. Subsequently he was promoted as Junior Engineer on 1.10.1982. In the normal course, he was to retire on 31.3.1995. However, on 30.3.1995, just a day prior to the superannuation, a charge memo was served on the petitioner alleging that he had committed certain irregularities while he was working as Junior Engineer in Villianur Commune Panchayat, Villianur between January 1982 to December 1984. On the basis of the abovesaid charge memo, the petitioner was not allowed to retire necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) In the writ petition, it has been contended that even though the alleged misconduct was during January 1982 to December 1984 and the matter was within the knowledge of the higher authorities in the year 1984 itself, after long lapse of time, departmental proceedings have been initiated when the petitioner was about to retire. It has been contended that by lapse of time evidently, there has been loss of evidence which would ultimately result in failure of justice and the petitioner would not be in a position to prove his innocence if the enquiry is held at this distant point of time. It is further contended that in the connected matter, proceedings had been initiated against the Assistant Commissioner and various witnesses had been examined but ultimately the said proceedings had been dropped due to lack of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of her contention to the effect that proceedings initiated after long lapse of time should not be allowed to continue.