N ELANGOVAN DEPUTY MANAGER TAMIL NADU FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No,26664 of 2008: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records connected with the charge memo in Na.Ka.No,8476/Service 1/2000, dated 12.02.2002 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager on par with the petitioner's junior with effect from 2000 onwards with all consequential benefits. Prayer in W.P.No,28430 of 2008: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records connected with the charge memo in Rc.No.122/B/08, dated 23.09.2008 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager on par with the petitioner's junior with effect from 2000 onwards with all consequential benefits.) Common Order: The petitioner has filed two writ petitions in W.P.No,26664 of 2008 and W.P.No,28430 of 2008 challenging the proceedings of the second respondent.

(2.) IN view of the fact that the writ petitioner is one and the same and the respondents are also same, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final hearing.

(3.) THE learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, in both writ petitions submitted that in so far as the W.P.No,26664 of 2008 is concerned, the said writ petition will have to be allowed setting aside the charge memo dated 12.02.2002, issued by the first respondent on the grounds of delay and laches. According to the learned Senior Counsel, inasmuch as the earlier proceedings dated 18.03.1997, which is a charge memo issued by the third respondent has been set aside by the first respondent on the ground of procedural irregularity, the subsequent charge memo cannot be sustained and therefore, the delay has to be reckoned from atleast in the year 1997 onwards. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the occurrences took place in the year 1996 and the charge memo was originally issued by an authority, who is not competent to issue, and therefore, in view of the fact that the delay is due to the inaction on the part of the third respondent, the petitioner cannot found fault with. THE learned senior counsel further submits that the charges are very trivial in nature and that is the reason why they have framed 40(v) of the service Rules of the Corporation and hence the same will have to be set aside.