Order of suspension passed after date of retirement of delinquent.

Dharma Rao Elipe, J.

1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 111. 1998 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dismissing the Original Applications, O.A. Nos.1441 and 3058 of 1993, the original applicant has filed the above Writ Petitions.

.2. The petitioners case, in brief, is that while he was working as Deputy Registrar at Tuticorin during 1985-86, one Thangavelu joined as Joint Registrar, that dispute arose between him and the said Thangavelu in the matter of use of the official jeep and maintenance of the records therefor, that to avoid the situation, the petitioner failed to repair the jeep when it developed a trouble and on account of the said Thangavelu, Joint Registrar had framed four charges against him vide Charge Memo in Na.Ka. No.4064/87/A2 dated 27/22-2-1987 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules) involving minor penalty procedure, that later on the Joint Registrar altered the said charges from Rule 17(a) to Rule 17(b) involving major penalty procedure and issued a Charge Memo dated 13. 1987, that he was placed under suspension by order dated 23. 1987, when he was due to retire on 33. 1987, that on the report submitted by the Joint Registrar, Tuticorin, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies framed two charges, alleging (i) misappropriation of Rs.1000/- from the funds of Arumuganeri Agricultural Cooperative Bank and (ii) misappropriation of Rs.1000/- from the funds of Thenthirupathi Agricultural Co-operative Bank, that in the enquiry held in respect of the said charges, he was warned and censured respectively that on the basis of the report submitted by Thangavelu, Joint Registrar, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him on the tile of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings of Madurai Region at Madras and the Tribunal submitted a report to the Government stating that the charges have been held proved, that a second show cause notice was issued to him calling upon his explanation against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service, that he submitted a representation on 6. 1991, that the Government, after obtaining the views of the Public Service Commission, passed the order dated 21. 1993 dismissing him from service.

3. The order dated 21. 1993 passed by the first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service was the subject matter of challenge in O.A. No.1441 of 1993 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had also filed another Application, O.A. No.3058 of 1993 before the Tribunal. Challenging the charge memos dated 22. 1987 and 13. 1987 issued by the Joint Registrar, Tuticorin and also the Charge Memo dated 5. 1991 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

4. In so far as the petitioners challenge to the order of dismissal was concerned, the Tribunal, after considering the dismissal order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, held that a Government servant can be punished only on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry and that when a witness was declared hostile and cross-examined with the permission of the Court, his evidence remains admissible and that there was no legal bar to have a conviction upon his testimony if the same has been corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Tribunal also held that there was no procedural infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and that it was not open to the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence and came to its own conclusion. In the other Application, where the challenge was to the Charge Memo dated 22. 1987, 13. 1987 and 5. 1991, the Tribunal found that no ground was made out for quashing the charge memos and that inasmuch as the order of dismissal was upheld in the connected original Application, this Application was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was due for retirement on 33. 1987 and the third respondent