Ratios:
a. Continuance of the disciplinary proceeding against the Government servant after his retirement is not proper.
b. Government cannot impose a rider in the retirement order reserving itself the right to continue the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement.

By mutual consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. It is seen that in both the writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same and the impugned order dated 312. 2009 issued against the petitioner allowing him to retire from service on the due date of his retirement, i.e., on 312. 2009 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") pending against him in respect of the charge memos dated 110. 2007 (challenged in W.P.No.27474 of 2009) and 212. 2009 (challenged in W.P.No.27475 of 2009) and as such, both the writ petitions have been taken together for hearing and disposed of by the following common order.

3. The petitioner, in W.P.No.27475 of 2009 had initially come forward with a prayer to quash the charge memo dated 212. 2009 with a consequential relief of promoting him as Assistant Inspector General of Registration with all monetary and service benefits and privileges, but subsequently, the said prayer was amended, as per the order of this Court dated 03.03.2010 in view of issuance of the order dated 312. 2009 allowing the petitioner to retire without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the rules, to the effect of seeking the relief of quashing the order of the first respondent in G.O.[D] No.567 Commercial Taxes and Registration [H1] Department dated 312. 2009 insofar as it relates to the direction to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 17[b] of the Rules in respect of the pending charges and consequently forbearing the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 17[b] of the Tamilnadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules and to settle the pensionary and terminal benefits to the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of his retirement he was working as Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, and he retired from his service on 312. 2009. During his tenure, he was issued with charge memos dated 24.06.2005, 110. 2007 and 212. 2009. In respect of the first charge memo dated 24.06.2005, the proceedings were dropped and as such, the petitioner challenged the remaining two charge memos dated 110. 2007 and 212. 2009 in the above two writ petitions.

5. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 312. 2009 and on the same day, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 312. 2009 permitting the petitioner to retire on the afternoon on 312. 2009 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the rules in respect of pending charges.

6. The petitioner stated that once the Government allowed him to retire from service without invoking their powers under 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules to suspend the petitioner from his service and to extend the services of the petitioner beyond the date of his retirement so as to enable the Government to proceed with the pending disciplinary action, the Government thereafter cannot proceed against the delinquent Government servant and the mere wordings in the impugned order, viz., without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Rules pending against him, will not empower the Government to proceed against the petitioner after his retirement. It is also stated that under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules, the Government can suspend the Government servant before the last date of his retirement and can extend the services of the Government servant beyond the date of his retirement facilitating the Government to complete the departmental proceedings as per the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules for imposing a major penalty. Therefore, the Government cannot continue the departmental proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Rules without invoking its power under rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamen