1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 5/4/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)Nos. 2358, 2359 and 3063 of 2011 K. Marimuthu ... Petitioner in all the W.Ps. Vs. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Chennai 600 028. ... Respondent in all the W.Ps. Prayer in W.P.No.2358 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders passed by the respondent issued in his proceedings Charge Memo No.8992/B2/2011 dated 21/2/2011 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.2359 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders passed by the respondent issued in his proceedings No.8992/B2/2011 dated 21/2/2011 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.3063 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the orders passed by the respondent issued in his proceedings Charge Memo No.8992/B2/2011 dated 24/2/2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service with all service and other monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.A. Thirumurthy For Respondent : Mr.N. Ilango, G.A. C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner has come up with these present writ petitions challenging the charge memo, an order of suspension and an order retaining the petitioner in service. 2. The order of suspension, retaining the petitioner in service and charge memo were challenged on several grounds. It has been contended that the charge against the petitioner relates back to the year 1997 and hence according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is a huge delay in issuing the charge memo and hence is liable to be quashed. However, if the charge memo is looked into, it could be seen that the charges framed against the petitioner is for the period from 1997 to 2010. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a delay in issuance of the charge memo, cannot be accepted. At that point of time, the learned counsel appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner submitted that the respondent could be directed to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the earliest. 3. Taking into consideration the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petitions are disposed of, giving direction to the respondent to commence the disciplinary proceedings issued to the petitioner in pursuant to the charge memo dated 21/2/2011 and complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is directed to send a report to the Government and the Government is directed to pass final orders within two months thereafter. 4. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR mvs. To: The Inspector General of Registration Santhome,Chennai 600 028. 1CC TO MR. A. THIRUMURTHY, ADVOCATE, SR: 12589: 2CC'S TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 12707,12708: DM:2011:APRIL:21: W.P.(MD)Nos.2358, 2359 and 3063 of 2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/