Service of notice to be deemed to have been served.

K.A. SWAMI, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated November 9, 1995 passed by the learned single judge, dismissing W.P. No. 8975 of 1985, in which the petitioner/appellant had sought for quashing of the proceedings before the 1st Respondent (Director General of Police, Madras) starting from the charge memo P.R. 210 of 1984 dated October 5, 1984 and ending with the order of suspension in R.C. No. 750/Con.I(5)/84 dated December 28, 1984 and further to direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, pension, gratuity and general provident fund due to him immediately and any such other orders as may be deemed fit. 2. The petitioner was Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam Circle and was working as Security Officer to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal. He was served with the memo of charges for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. Thus, he was charged for corruption. The said charge was passed on October 5, 1984. It was also served upon the petitioner/appellant. 3. In the course of inquiry, he was placed under suspension by the order dated December 28, 1984 in Rc. No. 750/Con.I(5)184. The said order was also served on the petitioner/appellant in that it was affixed on the door of his house on December 28, 1984. After the suspension order was so served, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in August, 1985, seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on considering one of the questions as to whether the order of suspension was served upon the petitioner/appellant and has held that it was served in a proper form and it was within the knowledge of the petitioner. Accordingly, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. Thus, several other contentions raised in the writ petition were not considered by the learned single Judge. 6. However, before us, Shri Govind Swaminathan, learned senior counsel has urged only one ground based upon the provisions contained in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government. Rule 56 which appears in Chapter IX of the Book relates to retirement. The contention based upon that Rule is that undisputedly, the petitioner/appellant had attained the age of superannuation on December 31, 1984; that no doubt, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by serving a charge memo, but, no order was passed by the State Government or the Competent Authority, directing that the petitioner/appellant is not permitted to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and that he is retained in service op public grounds, viz., the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. It is not disputed in this case that no such order was passed before December 31, 1984. On the contrary, the Government has not allowed us to doubt, in this regard, by passing an order on May 8, 1996, which is produced at page 145 of the typed set of records, directing that the petitioner is not deemed to have retired from service at the age of superannuation on December 31, 1984 without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against 10 him in R.C. 210 of 1984 and that the disciplinary proceedings are to be continued. 7. The decision in this case revolves around the interpretation to be placed on Rule 56(a) and (c) of the Rules as it stood at the relevant point of time, viz., on December 31, 1984. The said Rule reads thus :-

"56.(a) The date of compulsory retirement of Government servant, whether he holds a substantive or officiating post, is the date on which he attains the age of Fifty-eight years. He shall not be retained in service after that age except with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he shall not be retained after the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances :

Provided that this clause shall not apply to Government servants who are treated as in superior service for the purpose of these Rules but as in Basic Service for the purpo