R. Sudhakar, J.

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 21. 2003 and made in O.A.No.8090 of 2001 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, the second respondent herein and quash the same.

2. The petitioner in this case is the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai, challenging the order of the second respondent-Tribunal, allowing the application filed by the first respondent, thereby setting aside his suspension order and consequently allowing the first respondent to retire with effect from 35. 2001 with all benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The first respondent-Teacher was working as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in Government High School, Sholavaram from 1998. The first respondent was arrested on 20.5.1998 by the Crime Branch-CID, Metro Wing in connection with Crime No.616 of 1998 for committing theft of X Standard and +2 Public Examination question papers for the various subjects. Since in the abovesaid criminal case, the first respondent was arrayed as accused No.2, he was placed under suspension - vide proceeding Rc.No.58925/C8/C31/98 dated 6. 1998 passed by the petitioner herein. A charge memo in Rc.No.58925/C8/C31/98 dated 17. 1998 was issued to the first respondent for his involvement in the theft of question papers, which was an act of indiscipline unbecoming of a Government servant, violating the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. The first respondent submitted his explanations on 8. 1998, 2. 1999, 29. 2000 and 15. 2001 and in the meanwhile, he approached the second respondent-Tribunal, challenging the order of suspension, dated 6. 1998 by filing O.A.NO.734 of 1999. In the meanwhile, the criminal case ended in acquittal by judgment dated 33. 2000. The second respondent-Tribunal, by order dated 24. 2001, set aside the order of suspension dated 6. 1998. Thereafter, the first respondent was reinstated into service on 25. 2001 pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. However, the first respondent attained the age of superannuation on 35. 2001. The first respondent was not permitted to retire from service in view of the enquiry into grave charges pending against him. The petitioner further issued an order on 30.5.2001 retaining the first respondent in service and directed that he shall be deemed to be on extension of service beyond 35. 2001, in view of the grave charges pending in departmental proceedings, and until final orders are passed by the competent authority. Therefore, on 30.5.2001, by and the order of the petitioner, the first respondent was once again placed under suspension pending enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 19. 2001 holding that the charges levelled against the first respondent were proved and his statement of defence was rejected and held that the first respondent had violated Government Employee Conduct Rule 20. Before the disciplinary proceeding could be finally concluded, the first respondent once again approached the second respondent-Tribunal, challenging the order dated 30.5.2001, whereby the first respondent was not permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation pending enquiry. O.A.No.8090 of 2001 was admitted and by order dated 212. 2001, the Tribunal directed that the first respondent should be permitted to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings and subject to the result of the said Original Application. The first respondent was thereafter permitted to retire by proceeding RC.58925/C8/C31/98, dated 22. 2002 without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings and the criminal appeal if any filed against the judgment dated 33. 2000 passed by X Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.5717 of 1998. Subsequently, by order dated 21. 2003, the second respondent-Tribunal allowed O.A.No.8090 of 2001 and held that the first respondent shall be deemed to have retired with effect from