The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory Rules providing for continuation of disciplinary proceedings can be applied even after an employee's retirement.

1. The petitioner who was employed by the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, as an Inspector of Assessment, has come forward to file the present writ petition challenging a charge memo, dated 30.1.2009.

2. By the charge memo, the petitioner was accused of not taking enough care while taking cash collection to the bank deposit and not arranging proper security. It was found out that while he was working as an Inspector of Assessment at Chembakkam in Doraipakkam office of the Executive Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (South), a cash amount of Rs.4,97,271/- and cheque value of Rs.38,421/- were taken to the Indian Bank, Rajakeelpakkam Branch for deposit. But the money was taken away by some miscreants. Hence it was alleged that the petitioner who was responsible for the loss, had committed misconduct in terms of the Standing Order 19(i) applicable to the clerical cadre of the respondent Board and that he had not taken proper care and caution in arranging appropriate security.

3. The contention of the petitioner was that he had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.2009 and was allowed to retire, but no order was passed retaining him in service though it is stated in the said order that the retirement was without prejudice to the charges pending against him. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that under the Standing Orders, there is no power to retain an employee in service for the purpose of inflicting penalty pursuant to the disciplinary action. Hence the order is illegal.

4. When the writ petition came up on 2.4.2009, the Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board was directed to take notice. Subsequently, in the interim applications for grant of direction and interim stay, no orders were passed. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 22.10.2009.

5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that at no point of time, the Board had directed any person to go in two wheeler to remit the huge sums of amount and merely because the Standing Orders do not provide, it cannot be said that there is no power. Since it is already indicated that it is subject to disciplinary action taken against him and that the charge memo, dated 30.01.2009 was already pending, there is no illegality. Even otherwise, it was stated that under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, if the departmental proceedings are initiated when a Government servant is in service, it will be deemed to be a proceedings under the rule and it shall be continued and concluded in the same manner as if the government servant had continued in service. Since the employment in the Electricity Board has been brought under pensionable establishment and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules has been made applicable, the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

6. Though the counsel for the petitioner wanted to reply upon certain decisions of this court, the issue raised by the petitioner has been squarely covered by a judgment of this court in T.K.K.TharmarVs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai and others reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 877 and in paragraphs 8, 21 to 28, it was observed as follows:

"8. Alternatively, he submitted that since the petitioner was allowed to retire by an order dated 29.4.2005, no further proceedings can be initiated against him and his superannuation will terminate all further proceedings. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following three Division Bench judgments of this Court:-

(a) N.M. Somasundaram v. The Director General of Police, Madurai - 4 and others [1997 W.L.R. 120];

(b) State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Karuppiah [2005 (3) CTC 4]; and

(c) P. Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Ltd. [2006 (4) M.L.J. 504]

21. With reference to the second contention regarding the bar on taking disciplinary action, we must consider the relevant rule before proceeding to deal with the legal submissions. As per the proceedings dated 29.4.2005 i