1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD) No.220 of 2011 in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Fort Saint George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director, Department of Rural Development and Local Administration, Panagal Building 4th Floor, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 3.The Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam 4th floor, Chennai-600 108. 4.The Regional Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Madurai625 002. 5.The Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit, Madurai. 6.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. N.Kaliaperumal ... Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order, dated 13.08.2010, made in W.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Petition filed unde Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the sixth respondent dated 27.05.2010 in his Na.Ka.No.22741/2010/Oo.Va.4 served in the petitioner on 31.05.2010 and the charge memo Na.Ka.No.22741/2010/Oo.VA.4 dated 26.05.2010 served on the petitioner on 27.05.2010 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to disburse all the pension benefits and the consequential benefits. For appellants .. Mr.K.Mahendran, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Special Government Pleader For respondent .. Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) This writ appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 13.08.2010, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, holding that the impugned order passed on 27.05.2010 permitting the respondent to retire from Government service is modified and the words "without prejudice to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings" shall be deleted and the writ Court also quashed the charge memo dated 25.06.2010. 2.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader would mainly contend that the writ Court has passed the order deleting the words mentioned as without prejudice to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, in the impugned order, dated 27.05.2010 and further quashed the impugned charge memo, dated 25.06.2010, without making further observation to the effect that the appellants could take recourse to the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for recovery of any loss as per Rule 9(2)(a) r/w 9(1)(b) of the said rules. Therefore, it is submitted that the said aspect may be made clear. 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court as the writ Court has already considered the grievance of the appellants in paragraph No.6 of the order, regarding the liberty of the appellants to proceed, if they desire so, as per the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for recovery of any loss. 4.We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the order passed by the writ Court and the impugned order. 5.The fact remains that the writ Court followed the earlier decision of this Court in K.Durairajan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and another reported in (2010) 4 CTC 504, wherein this Court has placed reliance on the earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court regarding the issue involved in this matter. The writ Court also referred to other Division Bench decisions taking the similar view. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the question is whether the respondent can be proceeded against in the disciplinary proceedings, after allowing him to retire from service, without invoking Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. The writ Court has rightly held that the words mentioned in the impugned order, dated 27.05.2010, as "without prejudice to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings" shall be deleted and the writ Court has also quashed the charge memo, dated 25.06.2010. Though the writ Court has specifically referred to the above said decision of this Court in respect of observation made by this Court regarding the liberty of the appellants herein to resort to take recourse the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for recovery of any loss as per Rule 9(2)(a) r/w 9(1) (b) of the said Rules, the said observation was not made in the ultimate paragraph viz., at paragraph No.7 and that is the only grievance raised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 by the appellants. Therefore, we make it very clear that it is open to the appellants to take recourse to the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as per Rules 9(2)(a) r/w 9(1)(b) of the said Rules for recovery of any loss. 6.With the above observation, the writ appeal is hereby disposed of. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Fort Saint George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director, Department of Rural Development and Local Administration, Panagal Building 4th Floor, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 3.The Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam 4th floor, Chennai-600 108. 4.The Regional Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Madurai625 002. 5.The Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit, Madurai-20. 6.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai-20. +1CC TO MR.A.S.MUJIBUR RAHMAN, ADVOCATE SR.38152 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.38515 Gcg SR : 16.11.2011 : 3p/9c Judgment in W.A (MD) No.220 of 2011 04.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/