The central legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary action can be initiated against a government servant under specific conditions, and the authority has the right to continue disciplinary proceedings even after the servant's retirement.

K. Chandru, J.

Heard the arguments of Mr. R.S. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents 2 to 4 and have perused the records.

2. The petitioner challenged the charge-memo dated 26. 2004 issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 [for short, CCS Rules) before the Tribunal. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as an Income Tax Officer at Thirunelveli. During the year 2002-2003, he committed a gross misconduct and harassed one assessee and his wife. He illegally initiated wrongful income tax procedures against one assessee and addressed the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax [for short, IT] Department at Madurai for determination of cost of construction of a house belonging to the assessee. On this pretext, the IT officials demanded bribe from the assessee and they were caught red-handed by the CBI on 28. 2003 As soon as the arrest came to the light of the petitioner, he dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the IT Act against the said assessee and withdrew the reference.

3. That act was considered as the petitioner having failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in the manner unbecoming of a Government servant. The petitioner sent elaborate explanations to the charge-memo on 17. 2004 and 18. 2004. But, however, without waiting for further action, he chose to question the charge-memo itself. The ground taken before the CAT was that the charge-sheet was contrary to the CCS Rules and that no concrete opinion was found while framing the charge-memo. The Tribunal dismissed the said Application on the ground that an enquiry had been initiated and the petitioner can very well participate in the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 14. 2005, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. This Court at the time of admission of the writ petition granted an interim stay on 05. 2005. It is for the first time in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, a ground was taken that he had exercised a statutory function under Section 147 of the I.T. Act and no exception can be taken. Because of the interim order granted, no further proceedings were initiated. Since the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 30.4.2005, he was allowed to retire from service by an order dated 24. 2005 passed by the third respondent. Therefore, a further argument was advanced that no further disciplinary proceedings can be taken against him since the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation and was also permitted to retire.

5. However, Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings dated 24. 2005 issued by the second respondent on the very same date which reads as follows:

"The disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 with the above charge sheet shall continue under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972."

6. A counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents in the Miscellaneous Petition with a prayer to vacate the stay.

7. Mr. R.S.Ramanthan, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: The petitioner being an Income Tax Officer and a quasi-judicial authority, no exception can be taken to the action initiated by him and he also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (7) SCC 409 [Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and others] as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 Writ L.R. 670 [The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai v. N. Sivasamy and another].

8. Alternatively, he submitted that since the petitioner was allowed to retire by an order dated 24. 2005, no further proceedings can be initiated agains