V DORAIRAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1957 in the respondent Department and subsequently, promoted as Superintendent in the year 1975. It appears that the petitioner was kept under suspension by the second respondent in the year 1982, based on certain irregularities stated to have been committed during the year 1978 and 1979. Subsequently, a charge memo came to be passed on 30.7.1983 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. However, without conducting any enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service, by order dated 21.8.1987.

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has set aside the order of removal dated 21.8.1987 and directed the respondents to conduct a de novo enquiry. Accordingly, the second respondent conducted de novo enquiry and without passing any order on the enquiry, placed the petitioner under suspension on 19.11.1992 and issued another charge memo against the petitioner on 29.12.1993 framing 46 charges.

(3.) In the meantime, on 31.12.1993, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and he was not permitted to retire. However, it is not in dispute that on 29.7.2002, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings, nearly after nine years from the date of the order passed by the second respondent not allowing him to retire from service.