K RAJANGAM Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging two orders passed by the respondent, by one of which, the petitioner was placed under suspension and by the other, the petitioner was retained in service and not permitted to retire.

(2.) I have heard Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

(3.) THE main ground on which he challenges the impugned orders is that the impugned orders were not and could not have been passed on the dates indicated therein. According to the petitioner, he was not served with any order till the evening of 31.12.2010. THE order dated 28.12.2010, retaining the petitioner in service, was served on the petitioner, only on 29.1.2011, much after the date of retirement. THErefore, the petitioner claims that he is deemed to have retired, as no order of suspension and no order of retention were served on him before the date of his retirement.