1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:24.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)Nos.3360 & 3361 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Pushpam ... Petitioner in both W.Ps Vs. 1)The Director of Social Welfare & NMP, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2)The Accountant General (Pension), Teynampet, Chennai. 3)The District Social Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents in W.P(MD).No.3360/2011 The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, No.5/1B, Vinayaga Nagar, Madurai-20. ... Respondent in W.P(MD).No.3361/2011 W.P.(MD).No.3360 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceedings Proc.No.7287/Amn 5-1/2011 dated 23.02.2011 and the consequential proceedings Proc.No.7287/Amn 5- 1/2011 dated 24.02.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits to petitioner. W.P.(MD).No.3361 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent herein vide his proceedings Roc.No.61/2011/A1/ (TDP.7/2011) dated 23.02.2011 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Patturaja For Respondent : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Spl.Govt.Pleader COMMON ORDER By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order of suspension coupled with the order retaining the petitioner in service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension and the order retaining the petitioner in service has been passed just one day prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner and the charge memo was also issued to the petitioner on the same date. According to him, it is in violation of the Government order made in G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007 and Government letter dated 19.12.2005. The said Government order as well as the letter of the Government could only be an instruction to the departmental authorities and has no statutory value. That apart, if no order of suspension or retaining the petitioner in service is passed, the respondents cannot proceed with the charges against the petitioner. Hence, while issuing the charge memo, the petitioner was placed under suspension and also an order has been passed retaining the petitioner in service. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least the respondents could be directed to pass final orders on the charge memo issued to the petitioner. To this recourse, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents expressed no objection. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, it would be just and reasonable to direct the respondents to commence and complete the enquiry and pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In the result, these Writ Petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1)The Director of Social Welfare & NMP, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2)The Accountant General (Pension), Teynampet, Chennai. 3)The District Social Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District 4)The Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, No.5/1B, Vinayaga Nagar, Madurai-20. +1 CC to Mr.S.K.Patturaja, Advocate (SR.No.7747) W.P.(MD)Nos.3360 & 3361 of 2011 24.03.2011 ssm NSV/20.4.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/