(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1964 and he was promoted as Deputy collector in the year 1995. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2001. While he was in service as Deputy Collector, Namakkal, a charge memo was issued on 21.04.2000 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the second respondent. Along with the petitioner, five more officials were also chargesheeted. The charges are relating to certain irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner along with other officials in respect of land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner replied to the charge memo, denying the charges, on 15.12.2000. However, not satisfied with the reply from the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered into the charges. After conclusion of the enquiry, report was submitted on 11.07.2001 by the enquiry officer holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved.
(3.) While so, on the eve of the retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2001, he was placed under suspension followed by G.O.(2D) No.249 Revenue (Services II (1)) Department dated 31.07.2001, not permitting him to retire from service pending disciplinary proceedings. This action was taken notwithstanding the fact that the charges were held to be not proved by the enquiry officer. After passage of considerable time, the first respondent, on 12.01.2004, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation on his disagreement. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.06.2004 setting out that the findings of the enquiry officer were well considered and on the basis of the evidence made available in the enquiry. Inspite of his explanation, which was submitted as early as 22.06.2004, no final order has been passed by the respondents as on date.