There should be no any stigma in the order of compulsory retirement.

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. W.P. No. 545 of 1979 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed under Fundamental Rule 56(d) on 13th October, 1977. As the time of passing of the order, he was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Service.

2. Petitioner entered service as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 1st September, 1948, and he attained the age of 50 years on 14th July, 1977. A charge memo, dated 25th February, 1976 was framed under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to which he submitted a memorial on 28th February, 1976 to the Inspector-General of Police stating that he would prefer proceedings being referred to Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal instead of being tried by departmental officers. On 27th May, 1976, he was informed that his request cannot be conceded, as none of the charges against him specifically involves corruption. Therefore the enquiry was directed to be held by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. Later on it was transferred to the file of the Superintendent of Police, Salem, by an administrative order. On 24th October, 1976, he issued a charge memo, to the petitioner listing out the charges in respect of which he proposed to hold an enquiry.

3. In the meanwhile in G.O. Ms. No. 2749, Home Department, dated 13th October, 1977, the respondent passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by invoking Fundamental Rule 56 (d) and he was immediately relieved of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Excise), Tljanjavur West. Being aggrieved with the said order, he filed a review petition, and it was dismissed on 20th July, 1978.

4. While so, within 2 months of the order, dated 13th October, 1977, a memo. was issued on 30th December, 1977, by Superintendent of Police, Salem, stating that he intends to proceed with the enquiry on 9th January, 1978 in respect of the charges which were framed earlier to the order of compulsory retirement. On 5th January, 1978, petitioner sent a petition stating that he having been already retired and ceased to be a public servant, the proceedings cannot be continued, but this was not acceptable to the enquiry officer and he replied on 9th January, 1978, stating that as per the Circular of the Government, dated 8th September, 1976, he has to continue the oral enquiry, and that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Madras, by communication, dated 27th December, 1977, had also directed the enquiry to be continued. On 17th May, 1978, the petitioner again represented that he can no longer be subjected to the Rules governing Government servants, and therefore the Superintendent of Police, Salem had no jurisdiction to conduct any further enquiry, against a retired, Government servant. Since he persisted in the enquiry to be proceeded with, petitioner agreed to participate in the enquiry, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The Superintendent of Police, Salem has relied upon Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations for continuing disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner, in spite of compulsory retirement, ordered under Fundamental Rule 56(d).

5. Therefore, being aggrieved with the order of compulsory retirement and also of the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner had come forward to file W.P. No. 545 of 1979 challenging the order of compulsory retirement, and W.P. No. 4636 of 1978 to issue a writ of prohibition preventing the conduct of the enquiry by the two respondents therein.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed only in W. P. No. 545 of 1979, it is stated that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had reported that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner on the five allegations mentioned in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit. As the petitioner had been compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56 (d) and as "his conduct and character came to adverse notice only when he was serving