1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No. 836 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2011 C.Rajamani ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Municipal, Administration, Elizhgam, Chepauk,Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to allow the petitioner to retire from service, with all the retirement benefits and other back wages with interest on the basis of the second respondent proceedings in C1/1733/2002 dated 28.12.2010 within time framed by this court and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr. A.P.Muthu Pandian For R1 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.S.Kadarkarai O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the first respondent, the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Elizhgam, Chepauk, Chennai, to allow the petitioner to retire from service with all the retirement benefits and other back wages with interest on the basis of the second respondent, The Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation, Tuticorin District in his proceedings in C1/1733/2002 dated 28.12.2010. 2. Heard Mr.A.P.Muthu Pandian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry, in pursuant to the charge memo issued against the petitioner, dated 05.03.2010. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3350 of 2005, before this Court and this Court, in the beginning, was pleased to grant an order of stay against the proceedings, on 17.03.2010 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the said Writ Petition. 5.Thereafter,on 28.12.2010,the second respondent, finally in his proceedings dated 28.12.2010 by giving the entire details about his criminal case culminated in conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin and subsequent order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin in C.A.No.1 of 2009 dated 26.05.2009, gave a recommendation that the first respondent passed an appropriate order allowing the petitioner to retire from service as no other departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner. So that, the petitioner would be in a position to receive his retirement benefits and back wages from the date of his superannuation. In spite recommendation given by the second respondent on 22.02.2008 to the first respondent, the first respondent till date has not considered the said recommendation. As a result, the petitioner is not able to receive his retirement benefits and other back wages, which compelled the petitioner to come to this Court to file the present writ petition. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that when there is no impediment for the first respondent, as recommended by the second respondent, for passing final order permitting the petitioner from retiring from service, there is no justification for the first respondent in not passing any order on the recommendation of the second respondent. On that basis, he prayed for a direction to the second respondent to pass suitable order on the basis of the recommendation made by the second respondent. 7.The first respondent has also filed his counter affidavit. It is relevant to extract the paragraph No.10 of the said affidavit as hereunder: “10. It is also respectfully submitted that the enquiry process was delayed as the petitioner herein did not co- operate with the enquiry officer and has been deliberately delaying the process of enquiry for the reasons best known to him. Had he participated in the enquiry process as and when he was summoned, the enquiry could have been completed to enable this respondent to submit proposals to the Government for disposal as per law.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. As per the counter, filed by the first respondent, other departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner has not come to an end. Further, if there is no departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner, it is open to the first respondent to pass appropriate order on the basis of the recommendation already made by the second respondent as expeditiously as possible. 9.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To, 1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Elizhgam, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation,Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, Advocate, Sr.No.36671 W.P.(MD)No. 836 of 2011 20.10.2011 am SMA/24.11.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/