The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Pension Rules empower the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of a government servant.

S.NAGAMUTHU J.

1. Challenge in Writ Appeal (MD).No.698 of 2010 is to the order dated 13.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.9580 of 2010 and challenge in Writ Appeal (MD).No.721 of 2010 is to the order dated 21.12.2009 made in W.P. (MD).No.6402 of 2009. Since common issues are involved, both the Writ Appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment.

2. The appellant herein was working as a Sub-Registrar in the Co-operative Department of the Government. The respondent herein, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3508/2010/gbjh, dated 31.05.2010, permitted the appellant to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation without prejudice to the pending disciplinary action and other statutory actions. In pursuance of the said order, the appellant has retired from service, but he has not been paid the monetary benefits arising out of such retirement. The appellant was informed that because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and since his retirement was subject to the pendency of the said disciplinary action, he is not entitled for the payment of the monetary benefits. In those circumstances, he filed W.P.(MD).No.9580 of 2010 seeking to quash the said order of the respondent dated 31.05.2010, insofar as it relates to the continuance of the disciplinary action even after the retirement of the appellant. In other words, according to the appellant, the clause "without prejudice to the pending disciplinary action and other statutory actions" is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. The Writ Court, by order dated 13.09.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the same, the appellant has come up before this Court with the present Writ Appeal.

3. In this Writ Appeal, it is contended by the appellant that there is no statutory service rule, regulation, etc., which empowers the respondent to preserve the disciplinary proceedings and to continue the same even after the retirement of the appellant. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on few Judgments of this Court as well as the Honble Supreme Court, about which, we would make reference at the appropriate stages of this Judgment.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that such power flows from Rule 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, [hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"], which empowers the respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of the Government Servant. The learned Additional Government Pleader would, therefore, submit that the order of the Writ Court does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

5. We have considered the above submissions. Admittedly, charges have been framed against the appellant under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"]. While he was in service, he was not placed under suspension and there was also no order made under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules extending the service in the interest of the public and to continue the suspension. The learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to point out any statutory Service Rule, Regulation, etc., which would empower the respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of the appellant, except citing Rule 9(2)(a) of the Pension Rules. Therefore, we have to now analyze as to whether under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, the disciplinary proceedings initiated when the appellant was in service, could be continued. For this purpose, it would be appropriate to extract Rules 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, which read as follows;-"9(2)(a) The departmental proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Gover