1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1443 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. P.Pennarasi ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 15.06.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.14905 of 2010. WP(MD)No.14905 of 2010 : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the respondent relating to G.O.(1.D) NO.105, Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme Department dated 30.06.2008 and quash the condition done imposed in the impugned Government Order and consequently direct the respondent to make payment of the pension and other retirement benefits within a specified time frame, that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Appellant : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate. For Respondent/ : Mr.V.Visvalingam Caveator JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the Writ Court, dated 15.06.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.14905 of 2010, quashing the order of the appellant in G.O.(1-D)No.105, Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme Department, dated 30.06.2008, allowing the respondent to retire from service on 30.06.2008, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against her. 2.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant would contend that the order of the Writ Court is against Law and the same is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the appellant has rightly passed the order, dated 30.06.2008, allowing the respondent to retire from service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings were already initiated against the respondent and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in continuing the disciplinary proceedings after her retirement. 3.Heard Mr.V.Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, has only followed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Y.Raja vs. The Joint Registrar of co-operative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai, reported in 2011(1) CTC 18. It is contended that apart from the said decision, there is a catena of decisions rendered by several Division Benches and learned Single Judges of this Court and such being the position, there is absolutely no ground made out for warranting interference of this Court in the order of the Writ Court. 4.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and also perused the Writ Court's order as well as the impugned order passed by the appellant. 5.At the outset, it is to be stated that the respondent was allowed to retire, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against her. It is held in a catena of decisions of this Court, including the Division Bench decision in Y.Raja vs. The Joint Registrar of co-operative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai, reported in 2011(1) CTC 18, cited supra, that after allowing a delinquent officer to retire from service, departmental proceedings initiated against him cannot be proceeded with, except an action under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 6.It is pertinent to note that the Writ Court also in its order, dated 15.06.2011, has made it very clear that such being the position, there is no impediment for the appellant to proceed against the respondent, as per Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and there is no question of proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings already initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, we are not able to find out any ground to interfere in the order passed by the Writ Court. 7.Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is also dismissed. It is made clear that if it is so desired to initiate proceedings against the respondent under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the same shall be initiated and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that there is no impediment for the department to send pension proposals in respect of the services rendered by the respondent and the same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To: The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 43594 gb Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1443/2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 TR : 29.12.2011: 2p/3c Dated:13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/