R. Mahadevan, J. - (1.)THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Forester, on 16.04.1974, and thereafter, promoted as Ranger, from 19.02.1998 and attained the age of superannuation, on 30.09.2007. Even though the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, he was not relieved from service and retained in service. A charge memo, dated 03.01.2008, was issued alleging that while he was working as Forester in Industrial Wood Research Division, Coimbatore, abusing his official position, acquired assets to the tune of Rs. 3,13,826/ -. Challenging the said charge memo, the present Writ Petition has been laid.
(2.)THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier by proceedings, dated 15.06.2004, invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services, [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1955, the petitioner was suspended from service. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 29.11.2004, the suspension of the petitioner was extended until the completion of the departmental proceedings initiated against him and the criminal case registered on the file of Keeriparai Police Station, in Crime No. 61 of 2003. Subsequently, followed by the suspension, a charge sheet under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1955, was issued to the petitioner, by proceedings, dated 22.06.2004, which was, thereafter, by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 12.10.2006, dropped on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved.
The learned counsel further submits that when the matter stood thus, by proceedings, dated 26.09.2007, the first respondent retained the service of the petitioner on the ground that the Criminal Case in S.C. No. 171 of 2006, on the file of the District Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, is still under trial.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the criminal cases ended in acquittal and only to wreck vengeance against the activities of the petitioner, who was the president of the Forest Association, this false and vague charge memo has been issued in the year 2008. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the Judgments in M. V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others reported in : 2006 (5) SCC 88 and The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Ramarajan, reported in : 2009 (3) TLNJ 132 (Civil) and pleaded that the charge memo may be quashed.