IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 09-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.31156 of 2006(T) (O.A.No.4063 of 1996) K.P.Chandrasekaran Nair .. Petitioner. Versus 1.State of Tamilnadu, rep. by The Secretary to Government, Revenue (SSI) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The District Collector, O/o. The District Collector, Salem. 3. The Assistant Director, Land Survey Office, Salem-7. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.660, Revenue Department, dated 12.7.95, and also on the file of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.CON 9/90 (ADS), dated 18.11.95, and quash the same to the extent of taking disciplinary action and direct the respondents to pay all the monetary and service benefits with 18% interest per annum with effect from the date of due as if he retired honourably. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakandan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land record. While so, he was placed under suspension by an order, dated 7.2.91. Since the charges levelled against the petitioner related to certain incidents alleged to have taken place during the years 1985 to 1987 and as the charges were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vague in nature, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.1859 of 1993. The petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, on 28.2.91. However, he had been suspended, on 7.2.91, and thus, he was not allowed to retire from service. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an order, dated 7.2.94, had directed the respondents to obtain the findings of the Criminal Investigation Department and to finalise the disciplinary proceedings, within four months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the respondents should have finalised the disciplinary proceedings on or before 15.7.94. Though the respondents had not finalised the disciplinary proceedings as directed by the Tribunal, the petitioner had been continued under suspension and by an order, dated 18.11.95, the second respondent had revoked the order of suspension and allowed the petitioner to retire from services, with effect from 28.2.91. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4063 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.31156 of 2006. 3. At the time of the final hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had pointed out that the Government had ordered dropping of the charges and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It was also further stated that the petitioner had retired from service, with effect from 28.2.1991, and pursuant to which he had been paid all the pensionary benefits. 4. Paragraph-8 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents reads as follows: "It is also submitted that the Government have ordered the dropping of the disciplinary charges proceeded against the applicant and further ordered to consider that the applicant had been retired with effect from 28.2.1991 in G.O.No.300, Revenue (S.S.2) Department, dated 20.12.1996. Based on the above orders, the applicant has been paid all his pensionary benefits as listed below:- --------------------------------------------------------------------- .No. Particulars Amount Cashed on Rs. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GPF final withdrawal 25,354/- 30.08.91 2. Spl. Provident Fund 7,193/- 22.12.97 3. DCRG 37,290/- 19.08.98 4. E.L.Surrender 25,107/- 23.04.99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the claims made on behalf of the respondents. He had further submitted that in view of the submissions made in paragraph-8 of the reply affidavit, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Revenue (SSI) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The District Collector, O/o. The District Collector, Salem. 3. The Assistant Director, Land Survey Office, Salem-7. + 1 CC To Mr.R.Singaravelan, Advocate SR NO.36254 Writ Petition No.31156 of 2006 SGL(CO) SRA(21/07/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/