K V SUNDARAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had retired from service as Land Records Draughtsman, Taluk Office, Salem, on 31.1.90. Even though he was due to retire on 31.1.90, an order had been passed only on 4.10.93, by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Salem, in Na.Ka.A6/4216/93, dated 4.10.93, permitting him to retire from service, with effect from 31.1.90, as the charges against the petitioner had been dropped. THE petitioner has further stated that pensionary benefits due to him were not paid immediately on his retirement and instead they were paid belatedly as shown below: In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.4305 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.26652 of 2006.

(3.) THOUGH the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the delay was due to the charges framed against the petitioner for non submission of certain records, he has not been in a position to show that the delay in finalization of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was caused by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.1.90, on attaining the age of superannuation, the charges framed against him had not been proved by a proper enquiry, as contemplated by law.