P. MUTHUVEL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the appellant was permitted to retire from service, but, the disciplinary proceedings were directed to continue by invoking Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pensions Rules 1978 and consequently, forwarded the file to the Higher Authorities for taking action.

(2.) The charge against the appellant is with respect to the unauthorized absent. Incidentally, the appellant was suspended and not allowed to retire from service. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.6720 of 2011 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, after analysing the scope and ambit of Rule 56(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Fundamental Rules and on considering the relevant materials, quashed the order of suspension and the order not permitting the appellant to retire from service. A finding has also been given with respect to the ineligibility of the appellant to attend the work due to his health condition and the charge memo dated 26.05.2011, pursuant to which, two orders, namely, the order of suspension and the order not permitting the appellant to retire from service, were passed, which was too trivial and passed at the verge of his retirement. Though the learned Single Judge made certain observations on merits, which are on the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, which, in turn, would start with the charge memo, but, the same has not been quashed, perhaps, by inadvertence.

(3.) The aforesaid order has become final inter se party. Thereafter, the impugned orders, which sought to be assailed before us, were passed. The respondents invoked Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pensions Rules and accordingly, proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. The appellant once again laid a challenge before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed accordingly and hence, the present appeal.