U BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mrs. Malarvizhi Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Packiaraj and Mr. B. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsels for the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions are filed by the very same person and he is at present 71 years old. He was working as an Assistant Director in the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board [for short, 'TNKVIB'] at Dharapuram.

(3.) EVEN before the said writ petition, the petitioner had filed W.P. Nos. 23294 of 2001 to 23296 of 2001 challenging the charge memos dated 23.01.1999, 04.02.2000 and 19.10.2000 respectively. Notice of motion was ordered in these writ petitions on 28.01.2001. Subsequently, in the interim applications, W.M.P. Nos. 31797 to 31800 of 2001, by an order dated 24.02.2003, this Court directed the respondent to complete the enquiry against the petitioner within five months from the date of the order and if the enquiry is not completed, the Chief Executive Officer of the TNKVIB was directed to revoke the order of suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that even after that order was passed by this Court, no Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge memo dated 23.01.1999. The three charges dated 03.3.1997, 23.01.1999 and 04.02.2000 were issued against the petitioner after he had reached the age of superannuation. EVEN though the charges are serious, the short question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the respondent Board has power to frame charges after the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation.