1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.326 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 The Secretary to Government, Public Works (E1) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009. : Appellant Vs. M.Ramanathan : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30.06.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.7383 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent passed in G.O(3D) No.220 dated 7.10.1996 and the order of the respondent passed in G.O(3D) No.49 dated 29.06.1999 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire with all monetary and attendant benefits with interest from the date of his eligibility till the payment of retirement benefits as per the pay fixed by the respondent and also other consequential service benefits. For Appellant : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.Veera Kathiravan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 30.06.2010 passed in W.P.(MD).No.7383 of 2010. 2. In the said Writ Petition, the respondent herein had challenged the order issued in G.O.(3D).No.220, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 07.10.1996, by which the respondent was placed under suspension and the order issued in G.O.(3D).No.49, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 29.06.1999, by which the respondent was not permitted to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.09.1999 and was retained in service till the criminal case in Crime No.3 of 1995 is concluded. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 30.06.2010, had allowed the said Writ Petition. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, the allegations levelled as against the respondent are of serious in nature. When a criminal case is pending as against the respondent, he cannot be permitted to retire from service. Yet another stand taken by the learned Special Government Pleader is that several criminal cases are pending before the concerned Court, consequently, time consumption is also there for the disposal of the above criminal case. Basing on this, the learned Special Government Pleader has prayed for allowing of the Writ Appeal. 4. We are not inclined to accept any one of the arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader, for the reason that along with the respondent, one Mr.K.Natarajan, was also involved in criminal case in Crime No.3 of 1995 and action was initiated as against the said K.Natarajan and he had filed Writ Petition (MD).No.6452 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 15.10.2009, had allowed the said Writ Petition. As against the same, W.A.(MD).No.585 of 2010 was filed by the Government. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 27.09.2010, had dismissed the said Writ Appeal. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant. 5. Apart from the above, certainly, if any Government Servant has committed any commission and omission, the Departmental Authorities are empowered to initiate appropriate action as against the erring Government Servant. But, the same should be done within a reasonable time. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the suspension order was passed on 07.10.1996 and though 15 years have lapsed, till date, the issue has not been finalized. It is also not disputed that the respondent had reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.1999. However, on reaching the age of superannuation, he was not permitted to retire from service and for more than 12 years, he was not permitted to retire from service. Having initiated action, a duty is cast upon on the Departmental Authorities to take all possible steps to get a finality in the criminal case. Having kept the respondent under suspension for a period of 16 years, without taking any steps for speedy disposal of the criminal case pending against him, the stand of the appellant that still more the respondent should be kept under suspension and retained in service cannot be accepted. 6. According to the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant, one of the grounds, basing on which the Writ Appeal is filed is that a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition was received on 23.06.2010 and the Writ Petition was disposed of on 30.06.2010 and there was no opportunity given to the appellant to file a counter affidavit. 7. We made a specific suggestion to the learned Special Government Pleader that if there are any other grounds available, the same can be brought to the notice of this Court. However, even in the grounds of Writ Appeal, there are no other grounds raised with regard to the infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. Apart from this, neither the date of suspension nor the date of superannuation and the date of the order, by which the respondent was not permitted to retire from service is disputed. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 30.06.2010 made in W.P. (MD).No.7383 of 2010 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Secretary to Government, Public Works (E1) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, Advocate, SR.No. 19130 NB JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.326 of 2011 17.06.2011 TR : 06.07.2011 : 3p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/