1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN W.A.(MD)No.927 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. ...Appellant/Respondent Vs. R.Govindaraju ...Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8750 of 2010 dated 09.07.2010. Prayer in WP.No.8750/2010:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to G.O(2-D) No.395 Revenue Ser-2(2) Department dated 30.6.2010 and quash the condition alone imposed in the impugned Government Orders and consequently direct the respondent to make payment of the pension and other retirement benefits within a specified time from that may be fixed by this Court. For Appellant : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.S.Visvalingam JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J.) The respondent herein is the Deputy Collector. He was originally recruited through TNPSC and joined duty in the Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, Musiri on 10.06.1976. His name was included in the approved list of Assistants of the year 1981, included in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1995, included in the approved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 list of Tahsildars of the year 1999 and also included in the approved list of Deputy Collectors of the year 2007. The respondent attained the age of superannuation and he retired on 30.06.2010. The appellant herein, vide Government Order in G.O.(2-D)No.395, Revenue Department, dated 30.06.2010, allowed the respondent to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary case pending against the respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent filed the impugned writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.8750 of 2010. After hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides, the learned Single Judge set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and allowed the writ petition holding that the Government cannot reserve any right while allowing a Government Servant to retire unless he is placed under suspension. Aggrieved by that, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2.Mr.S.Visvalingam, the learned counsel has taken notice on behalf of the respondent. 3.Learned counsel appearing for both the sides, have stated that the present issue is covered by a judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal(MD)No.779 of 2011 dated 26.08.2011. It has been held in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment as under:- “3.Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner was instituted and after allowing the writ petitioner to retire, the charges were served. Therefore, by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench Y.Raja Vs. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai reported in 2011 (1) CTC 18, the department is entitled to proceed under the Pension Rule. It is also relevant to point out in this case that even under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which is as follows: "9.Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension- (2)(a)The departmental proceeding referred to in sub rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 In relation to the proceedings, which are instituted, the authority has got a right to complete the proceedings . 4.In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed to the effect that the appellants are entitled to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent concerned under Rule 60 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Making it clear that pending such disciplinary proceedings, the appellants shall disburse all the retirement benefits to the respondent, including provisional pension in accordance with Rule 60 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.” Following the above judgment of this Court, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal. The appellant is entitled to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent concerned under Rule 60 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. We make it clear that pending such disciplinary proceedings, the appellant shall disburse all the retirement benefits to the respondent, including provisional pension in accordance with Rule 60 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4.With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 KM rl/2c – 4.10.2011 W.A.(MD)No.927 of 2011 22.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/