R.K. Agrawal, Acting Chief Justice:

Doubting the correctness of the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal (MD) No.669 of 2011 (The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, District, Tiruchirappalli vs. N. Mohanraj) decided on 22.7.2011, a Co-ordinate Bench had referred the present appeal to a Larger Bench. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced below:-

“The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether even in cases where there are serious charges of misappropriation and loss caused to the Government Exchequer, an employee, on attaining the age of superannuation, could be allowed to retire, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings which are contemplated.

2. There are conflicting decisions on this issue. We doubt the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.669 of 2011 dated 22.7.2011. Hence, the matter needs to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench.

... ... ...

2. Law laid down by this Court in the case of District Collector, Tiruchirappalli (supra)

In the aforesaid case, the writ petitioner-N. Mohanraj was permitted to retire from service on 30.6.2010 on the attainment of the age of superannuation without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings which are contemplated. The learned single Judge had held that unless and until by invoking the powers under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fundamental Rules’), the Government passes an order retaining the services of the Government Servants even after their attaining the age of superannuation, for the purpose of facing the disciplinary proceedings, the authority has no power to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. The learned single Judge, while holding so, has relied upon a judgment of this Court in P. Muthusamy vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited reported in 2006 (4) M.L.J. 504, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had in categoric terms held that permission to retire an employee without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings is not authorized under any rule. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli preferred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the learned single Judge. The Division Bench, after referring to the decisions of this Court in the case of Kootha Pillai vs. Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Chennai, 2009 (1) M.L.J. 761 and The State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Karuppiah, 2005 (3) C.T.C. 4, which are both decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, had dismissed the appeal preferred by the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli against the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench reiterated the observation of the learned single Judge that unless and until an order under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules is passed, no further proceedings can be continued under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 also.

3. Facts of the case

The appellant/writ petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at Olaipatti Village, on reaching the age of superannuation, was allowed to retire vide proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 30.6.2011, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The charge against the appellant was that while he was working as V.A.O. in Navapatti Village, proceedings were initiated against him along with several other V.A.Os. for committing irregularities in disbursement of old age pension to senior citizens. A charge memo had come to be issued to the appellant on 29.6.2011, just a day before his retirement, stating that while working as V.A.O., Navapatti, he had recommended the case of two unqualified persons for old age pension and had committed serious irregularities, in that he had misused his Government Service by acting in an irresponsible manner and was thereby responsible for causing loss to the State by making such recommen