BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.9004 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 C.Sathanantham ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 28. 2.The District Registrar, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records the impugned order of the suspension passed by the 1st respondent by his proceedings No.69394/B1/2005 dated 20.09.2008 and also passed an order to retaining the petitioner in service by his proceedings No.69394/B1/2005 dated 29.09.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service and to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Karnan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Govt. Advocate * * * * * :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records and the impugned
order of the suspension passed by the first respondent by his proceedings dated
20.09.2008 No.69394/B1/2005 and also passed an order to retaining the petitioner
in service by his proceedings dated 29.09.2008 No.69394/B1/2005 and quash the
same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service
and to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect that the petitoner was working under the Tamil
Nadu Government as Sub Registrar in the Registration Department; while so, his
superannuation was 30.09.2008; it so happened that even while he was in service,
departmental enquiry was opened as against him as though he unauthorizedly gave
employment to a person working under him; in connection with that proceedings
are pending; W.P.No.9001 of 2008 was filed and in that this Court on 16.10.2008
passed direction as under:
“The disciplinary authority viz., the second respondent shall do well to
see that the disciplinary proceedings are completed within a period of three
months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order”.
however, on the superannuation date, instead of the petitioner having been
allowed to retire, they simply suspended him instead of allowing him to retire.
According to the petitioner the charges are not so grave enough for suspending
him and preventing him from retiring from service.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
is having no objection for the enquiry being conducted to its logical end;
however, if he is allowed to retire, under the pension rules, he will be able to
get his retirement benefits and also his provisional pension. Hence, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would ultimately pray that liberty may be
given to the petitioner to make representation to the authority concerned.
5. Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:
The petitioner shall make representation to the authority concerned for
reviewing the order of suspension and permitting him to retire, pending disposal
of the enquiry proceedings and the same shall be considered on merits after
giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar,
Pattukkottai,
Thanjavur District.