A GOVINDARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was working as a District Registrar, has filed the present writ petition represented through his Power of Agent, who is none other than his daughter. THE Power of Agent has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition. THE prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order in G.O.(2D)No.148, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 30.6.2009 and the charge memo, dated 15.7.2009 framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and seeks to prevent the respondents from proceeding with the departmental action and also to settle his terminal benefits.

(2.) IT is claimed by the petitioner that he left the Country on 21.11.2009 to New Zealand along with his wife to help his eldest daughter in connection with her delivery of second child. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.6.2009 by G.O.(2D)No.143, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 17.6.2009 under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. As the petitioner was about to reach the age of superannuation on 30.6.2009, he was prevented from retiring from service by exercise of power under FR 56(1)(c) by G.O.(2D)No.148, CT&R Department, dated 30.6.2009.

(3.) THEREFORE, in the normal circumstances, the petitioner must face the enquiry in the light of the stand taken by him. It is the case of the petitioner that after he left the country on 21.11.2009, the matter came to be disposed of and he never instructed his counsel to inform this court about his intention to participate in the enquiry and it was a wrongful concession given by his counsel. In any event, he had stated that inasmuch as his services were not extended before 30.6.2009, any order served on him thereafter has no value. Even as per the postal endorsement, it was received by his Head of the Department only on 6.7.2009, i.e. after six days after the date of his superannuation. The order not permitting him to retire was not served on him and the covering letter will show that the order was not served on him before his date of retirement. Since he had already reached the age of superannuation, any proceedings taken was not binding on him.