No order can be passed against Govt. Orders.

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.07.2002 made in W.P.No.7416 of 2000, confirming the order in Appeal dated 14.02.2000.

2. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that he being a Deputy Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, has reached the age of superannuation as early as 31.05.1995. However, he was not allowed to retire from service by an order dated 29.05.1995 and also he was placed under suspension by another order of the same date, namely, 29.05.1995 that the departmental enquiry was pending.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that he was a diploma holder in Sanitary Engineering and was appointed as a Public Works Supervisor in Rasipuram Municipality on 20.04.1960. Thereafter, he was promoted as Municipal Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer on 17.08.1966, 210. 1970, and 23.07.1980 respectively. Further, he was worked as Deputy Superintending Engineer at Tirunelveli from 1993 to 1995. While he was working as Executive Engineer at Ooty, based on the audit report for the period 1981-82 to 1987-88, he was confronted with irregularities in the matter of purchase of materials in the above division during the period from 12.05.1982 to 16.05.1985. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension by the second respondent, by his Proceedings dated 02.09.1988. Challenging the same, he filed W.P.No.19276 of 1992 and by order dated 012. 1992 this Court had directed the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a period of three months. When the enquiry was not completed within three months as stipulated in the order, an extension application in WMP.No.6081 of 1993 in the said writ petition was filed. This Court, by order dated 08.03.1993 rejected the same and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Thereafter, by Proceedings dated 12.03.1993 he was reinstated into service. After reinstatement, for the first time, three charges were framed on 29.05.1995 for the irregularities committed by him during the period from 1982 to 1985.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that it is pertinent to note that he has to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.1995. However, the second respondent has not permitted him to retire from service in exercise of powers conferred under FR 56(1)(c) read with Regulation 58 of TWAD Service Regulations, 1972. By another order dated 29.05.1995, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Though the charge memo was issued, he has not been served with copies of documents. Hence, he sent a representation on 18.07.1995 for supply of documents, but it was not considered. Hence, he filed W.P.No.1247 of 1996 challenging the charge memo and this Court, by order, dated 12.04.1996 directed the respondents to make available all the documents in four weeks and directed the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry within three months from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 111. 1986 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.11.1996 and after completing the enquiry, a report was submitted on 14.05.1997 holding that except charges 1(i), 1(vi), other charges were not proved and only charge No.1(viii) was partially proved. When they failed to pass final orders, as directed by this Court, WPMP.No.1094 of 1997 in W.P.No.1247 of 1996 was filed for extension of time and one month time was granted. Even though the time was extended by one month, final order was not passed and they filed WPMP.No.3400 of 1998 praying further extension of time, but it was dismissed on 28.04.1998. In the mean time, due to the retirement of the Enquiry Officer, another Enquiry Officer was appointed and it was objected to by the petitioner. They have completed the enquiry exparte and final orders were passed. By virtue of the order dated 211. 1997 in WPMP.No.1094 of 1997, the respondents have no power to go on with the enq