THANGARAJ Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both the counsel, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the charge memo issued by the first respondent vide letter in reference No.117656/prison-1, 2006-6, dated 02.03.2007.

(3.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Packer Clerk in Prison Department of Government of tamil Nadu on 16.10.1968. He retired from service as Office Superintendent on 30.06.2006, on attaining the age of Superannuation. The petitioner's pension proposals were sanctioned by the second respondent through his proceedings dated 26.06.2006. The terminal benefits payable to the petitioner are not settled and the pension sanctioned was also not paid. Hence, the petitioner filed w. P (MD ). No.8910 of 2006, and prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to release the retirement benefits. This Court by order dated 16.10.2006 directed the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2006 for the grant of pension and terminal benefits and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. The said order having not been complied with, the petitioner filed contempt petition (MD) No.10 of 2007 and thereafter, the impugned charge memo was issued to the petitioner and the same is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition contending that the charges are vague, the charge memo is issued in violation of Rule 9 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and some of the charges are in respect of the events, which took place beyond the period of four years before the initiation of enquiry i. e. , on 02.03.2007 and the charge memo was issued to the main accused on 05.07.2006 and the petitioner was issued a charge memo belatedly.