S.K.Krishnan, J.: As against the Common Order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3441 of 1991 and 1458 of 2001, dated 19.10.2001, the respondents in the above said applications, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, have filed these writ petitions in W.Ps.No.32890 and 32891 of 2002 respectively.

2. Since both the writ petitions assailed the same order and the issue involved in these petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we call the parties as arrayed in W.P.No.32890 of 2002.

3. The facts, leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions, are as follows:

(a) On the basis of the vigilance report that the first respondent accepted bribe and committed malpractice while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai District, in the enquiry conducted against the first respondent and one Head Constable Murugesan, the charges levelled against the first respondent were proved, whereas against the said Murugesan, action was dropped as the charges were not proved.

(b) As against the three allegations, while action in respect of the first allegation was dropped by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai, Tribunal enquiry was recommended in respect of second and third allegations against the first respondent. Since the non-co-operation of the first respondent and in view of filing an application in O.A.Nos.3441 of 1991 and 1458 of 2001, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings could not proceed against the first respondent.

(c) Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed the applications filed by the first respondent in his favour, the petitioners have filed these petitions.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would contend that because of the non-co-operation of the first respondent, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings could not proceed with the allegations levelled against him and therefore, the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal without considering the above said fact, is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that when the first respondent was allowed to retire from service on 31.5.1990, he cannot be proceeded with the charges levelled against him and therefore, after considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal came to the right conclusion and quashed all the proceedings against the first respondent.

7. In support of his contention, he strongly relied on the decision in N.M. Somasundaram v. The Director General of Police, Madras, (1997) W.L.R. 120).

8. In response, the learned Special Government Pleader relying on Rule56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules would submit that no Government Servant in superior service shall be allowed to remain in service after the age of fifty-eight years except with the sanction of the Government on public grounds and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Further, placing strong reliance on Sub rule 2(a) and 6(b) to Rule 9, of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, it is contended that since the first respondent was placed under suspension while he was in service, the departmental proceeding already instituted, shall, after the final retirement of the Government Servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service and therefore, in this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent cannot be accepted.

9. It is an admitted fact that while the first respondent was working as Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Circle, on certain grave charges, he was placed under suspension with effect from 20.11.1989, by an order of the second petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document