IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 1.9.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN Writ Petition No.21492 of 2008 N.A.Mathiyalagan .. Petitioner Vs. The Principal District Judge Salem & District. .. Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of suspension issued by the respondent vide his office proc.No.ROC 5457/A/2004 dated 27.8.2008 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to regularise the petitioners duty with all service benefits and allow the petitioner to retire on superannuation. For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondent : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, AGP O R D E R (Made by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.) The petitioner, who is working as Superintendent, Labour Court, Salem has to retire from service on 31.8.2008 on attaining the age of 58 years. Just three days prior to his retirement, the Principal District Judge, Salem by proceedings in ROC 5457/A/2004 dated 27.8.2008 suspended him for alleged misappropriation of Court fee worth Rs.3,27,782.25, since Court fee stamp papers were found missing on 4.11.2004 while the petitioner was working as Sheristadhar. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent has issued an order on 28.8.2008 extending the service and thereby, the petitioner has not been permitted to retire. It is also submitted that the matter relates to an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegation of four years back and the petitioner had no connection with the same. 3. It appears that a Police case in Crime No.38 of 2004 dated 10.11.2004 has already been registered by District Crime Branch, Salem against the petitioner and others under Section 409 and 380, IPC for alleged theft of Court fee stamp papers in the Sub Court, Sankari to the tune of Rs.3,27,782.25. For the said reason, a disciplinary proceedings dated 25.10.2004 initiated under Section 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules by the Sub Judge, Sankari for missing of Court fee stamps in the Sub Court, Sankari. The petitioner has been suspended in connection with the said proceedings. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to Rule 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules. Under Rule 56, every Government servant has to retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years, but in very special circumstances, appointing authority may not permit the employees to retire, as is evident from the provisions and quoted hereunder: Rule 56: (1) Retirement on Superannuation.- (a) ... (b) ... (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), a Government servant who is under suspension, (i) on a charge of misconduct; or (ii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct, is pending; or (iii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending; or (iv) against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial shall not be permitted by the appointing authority to retire on his reaching the date of retirement, but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge of misconduct or criminal misconduct or the enquiry into allegations of criminal misconduct or the enquiry into contemplated charges or disciplinary proceeding taken under rule 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or rule 3(c) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as the case may be, in respect of item (iv) above is concluded and a final order passed thereon by the competent authority or by any higher authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, the expression 'criminal misconduct' shall have the same meaning as in Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988). 5. From the Rule aforesaid, we find that the competent authority can refuse the petitioner to retire from service. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner intends to challenge the order extending the service dated 28.8.2008, but in view of Rule 56(1)(c) of the Rules, such power having delegated with the appointing authority, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter. Finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 are also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kpl To The Principal District Judge Salem & District. 1 cc To Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate, SR.49876. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.49604. W.P.No.21492 of 2008. SGL(CO) RVL 22.09.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/