1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :13.06.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.(MD).No.1006 of 2011 (*)T.Veeranan ... Petitioner Versus The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to ROC No.51260/2010/A-2 dated 30.09.2010 and quash the condition alone in the impugned order and direct the respondent to disburse pension and all other retirement benefits within a specified time frame. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondent :Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate ORDER Challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 30.09.2010, the present writ petition is filed. 2.The short facts of the matter set out in the affidavit are hereunder: i)The petitioner has joined as a Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department in the year 1985. His name was included in the list of Assistants of the year 1988 in Dindigul District. He has attained superannuation on 30.09.2010. He was allowed to retire on the said date without prejudice to the charges pending against him. ii)Charges were framed under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai dated 04.04.2006. He submitted his explanation for the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer who was so appointed submitted his report. He gave his further representation on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Government in G.O.(2-D) No.49 Revenue Department dated 29.01.2010 passed orders stopping his increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appeal and revision petitions were disposed by saying that the civil suit is pending before the District Munsif, Madurai and therefore they cannot be entertained till the disposal of the said suit. iii)The petitioner filed a writ Petition in W.P.No.2063 of 2010 challenging the order of punishment. While so the Government issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 orders in G.O.(2-D) NO.309 Revenue Department dated 19.05.2010, wherein the order of punishment namely stoppage of increment was cancelled. It was then decided to proceed against him under the pension rules. Even the same cannot be done since it is beyond the period of limitation of four years. By setting out those facts, the petitioner challenged the impugned order of the respondent dated 30.09.2010. 3.A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein, the following facts have been set out: The petitioner who was dealing with the subject 'Patta Transfer' put up a misleading note to the then Tahsildar for orders. This lead the Tahsildar to pass orders including the name of one Thiru.Karmegam as joint pattadar. Later a separate patta was also issued in his name. Certain charge has been framed against the petitioner along with certain other individuals. After an enquiry, he was awarded a punishment by stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Challenging the said order of punishment, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2063 of 2010. Inasmuch as the date of retirement of the petitioner fell within one year i.e., 30.09.2010, the respondent has sent a report to the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 22.03.2010 stating that the punishment cannot be given effect to fully. Thereupon, the Government in G.O.(2D).NO.309 Revenue [Ser-2(1)] Department dated 19.05.2010 has cancelled the earlier G.O.(2D).No.49 Revenue [Ser-2(1)] Department pertaining to punishment and conveyed the intention that the disciplinary proceedings can be continued after superannuation under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The moratorium period of four years is not applicable in the case of the petitioner since disciplinary proceedings have already been started and the same shall be continued under the pension rules. Thus, the counter seeks for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4.On the basis of the above pleadings, I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 5.The facts extracted above would reveal that the petitioner was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. It is not in dispute that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2010. He was also allowed to retire from service. However the question that arose for consideration is “Whether a Government employee who was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation still can be proceeded and disciplinary proceedings can be proceeded against him?” 6.The Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2011 (1) CTC 18 (Y.Raja vs The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai), has taken the view that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 departmental proceedings against a government servant initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules can be continued against him even after his retirement, even though no punishment can be imposed under Rule 17(b) and only pension can be withheld under Rule 9(1)(a). That apart, it is stated that original proceedings shall be deemed to be proceeded under Rule 9 of Pension Rules. 7.In view of the above stated dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the respondent allowing the petitioner to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him is absolutely incorrect. However, it does not mean that no proceedings against the petitioner can be taken under Pension Rules. 8.Taking such view, the impugned order of the respondent dated 30.09.2010 is set aside in so far as it relates to allowing the petitioner to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary case pending against him. However the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under pension rules if they choose to do so within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such proceedings has been taken against the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to raise all grounds which is available to him. It is needless to say that in view of the order above passed, a proposal has to be sent to the appropriate authority for payment of pension(*) within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9.In the result, this writ petition is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- 13.06.2011 (*)Amended as per order of this Court dated 23.06.2011 in WP(MD)No.1006/2011 Sd/- Deputy Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To The District Collector,Madurai District,Madurai. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.18525 W.P.(MD)No.1006 of 2011 13.06.2011 vs PA/29.06.2011/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/