S. SARAVANAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent. The third respondent, who is only a formal party has not filed any counter. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent passed in R.C. No. 10858/08/A1, dated 15.07.2008 and R.C. No. 10858/08/A1, dated 31.07.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to pay retirement benefits payable to the petitioner with interest from the date of his eligibility till the date of realisation of the amount.

(2.) The petitioner herein had joined the service in Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (E2) Department as Junior Assistant/ Textile Inspector on 04.01.1972, selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Initially, he was appointed in the department of Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Salem and also posted in the equal category of Textile Inspector and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008, after completing 36 years of service. The petitioner was allowed by the first respondent to retire from service, as per G.O.Ms. No. (2D) No. 35, dated 30.06.2008 without prejudice to the pending departmental proceedings against him.

(3.) The petitioner has submitted further that a charge memo had been issued on the petitioner in R.C. No. 2059/08/Q1, dated 21-01-2008 by the second respondent, for which he gave his explanation. Finally, in view of the disciplinary proceeding, the second respondent imposed a penalty of cut of pension at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for two years against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and gave willingness to the first respondent to impose penalty of deduction in pension at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and accordingly, the penalty was modified. Subsequently, there was no adverse remarks against the petitioner, hence, it is stated an act of depriving the rights of the petitioner, in his retirement benefits. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit about the penalty that was imposed on him by the first respondent on 10.02.2010 and also made representation on 31.03.2010 and 26.11.2010, seeking to allow him to retire peacefully and to pay all his retirement benefits payable by the respondents for the services rendered by him.