IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2011 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR W.P. No. 2929 of 2008 T.N.A. Kamal Basha .. Petitioner Vs. The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai.5. .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent herein passed in his Memo R.No.4125/VA 2/ 2007, dated 15.10.2007 formulating charge sheet under Rule 9(2)(b) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules against the petitioner and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. Ravishanmugam For Respondent : Mr. L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Govt. Advocate ORDER This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent herein passed in his Memo R.No.4125/VA 2/ 2007, dated 15.10.2007 formulating charge sheet under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules against the petitioner and quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner while working as Superintendent in the Office of the Regional Transport Office, Tirunelveli was subjected to a surprise check by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption wing of the department on 10.9.2003. The petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining the age of super-annuation on 31.12.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that he has received all the retirement benefits, he has also been receiving pension without any break and after nearly four years on 23.11.2007, a charge memo under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules has been issued. As per the records, the date of formulation of charges under the Pension Rules is 15.10.2007. The legal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contention raised by the petitioner in this case is that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is contrary to Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, more particularly, Rule 9(2)(b) and 9(6)(a) of the Rules. 3. According to the petitioner, the institution of the departmental proceedings will be the date on which, the statement of charges is issued to the pensioner. In this case, the date of institution is 23.11.2007 and that is not disputed. As per Rule 9(2) (b) of the Pension Rules, the departmental proceedings under the Pension Rules cannot be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years earlier. The surprise check, which happened on 10.9.2003 and the four years period reckoned from that date would expire on 10.9.2007 and therefore institution of the proceedings on 23.11.2007 issued under the provisions of 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is contrary to the Rules. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents referring to the G.O.(2D)No. 745, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 11.12.2006 is of no avail as the Rule specifically provides as to how such proceedings shall be instituted and it is not shown as to how the Government Order will override the Rule which is applicable to the facts of the present case. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings, which is contrary to the Rules is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ra To The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai.5. + 1 cc to Mr. Ravi Shanmugam, Advocate SR.5092 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.4844 WP No. 2929 of 2008 JRG(CO) Eu 11.2.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/