R MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the charge memo dated 15.06.2004, issued by the 1st respondent and for consequential direction to the respondents to grant all the retiral benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) AS the respondents have not chosen to complete the enquiry even after a lapse of 10 years, the petitioner made a representation dated 4.5.2004 ventilating his grievance to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, on 15.6.2004, the 1st respondent in his Lr.No.28741/E2/98-70 issued a charge memo which was served on the petitioner on 31.8.2004. Thereafter, on 14.9.2004, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondents expressing his difficulty to give explanation to the charge memo in view of his health condition and further , as he could not recollect the events which took place in the year 1989, he requested the respondents to furnish the documents relied on by the 1st respondent in support of the charge memo dated 15.6.2004, so as to enable him to submit his explanation to the said charge memo. The respondents neither furnished the copies of the documents, nor initiated departmental proceedings whereas they passed an order on 17.1.2005 by revoking the order of suspension dated 31.10.1995 and permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.10.1995, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 31.10.1995 A.N.