1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1575 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Director of Medical Education Department, Chennai. ... Appellants/ Respondents Vs. S.Prabhakaran ... Respondents/ Petitioners Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 15.03.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.5344 of 2009 for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in its Ref.No.59448/SC1(3)/2007-11 dated 23.01.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to release the pension and all other terminal benefits with effect from 01.07.2008 with compound interest. For Appellants : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.V.Vijayashankar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent. 2. By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order of the writ Court, dated 15.03.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.5344 of 2009, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, setting aside the impugned order passed by the second appellant herein, dated 23.01.2008. 4. The learned Government Advocate would contend that the present writ appeal is preferred only for a limited relief of permitting the appellants to proceed with as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It is contended that earlier Division Benches and the learned Single Judges have taken a consistent view to the effect that in the event of permitting a delinquent officer to retire from service, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued, but on the other hand, the said delinquent officer can very well be proceeded, as per Rule 9 (2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the said liberty, to the appellants, have not been given, while passing the order by the writ Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court, warranting interference of this Court. 6. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the order passed by the writ Court, as well as the impugned order passed by the second appellant herein. 7. At the out-set, it is to be stated that the respondent herein was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. It is decided in catena of decisions of this Court, including the latest Division Bench decision of this Court in Y.Raja Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai, reported in 2011 (1) CTC 18 that after allowing a delinquent officer to retire from service, departmental proceedings initiated against such an officer cannot be proceeded with, except an action under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules can alone be taken. 8. The grievance of the appellant is to the effect that the said observation was not made by the writ court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. 9. In view of the same, we are constrained to make it clear that it is open to the appellants to proceed against the respondent, as per Rule 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Further, we make it very clear that there is no question of proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings, as already held by the writ Court, against the respondent herein under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is made clear that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 all the retiral benefits, as per the entitlement of the respondent, should be settled within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observation, the writ appeal is hereby disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Director of Medical Education Department, Chennai. +1 CC to Mr.V.Vijayakumar, Advocate (SR.No.45298) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.NO.45940) Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1575 of 2011 Dated: 22.12.2011 gcg NSV/5.1.12/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/