P. DEVADASS, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is at the instance of the Commissioner, Tiruvallore Municipality, Tiruvallore (first respondent in the Writ Petition) as against the order of the Writ Court dated 5.8.2015 passed in W.P. No. 11915 of 2015.

2. This Writ Appeal arose under the following circumstances.

3. In 1978, Krishnan joined Tiruvallore Municipality as a Meter Reader. Subsequently, he became Town Planning Inspector. In the Court of District Munsif, Ambattur, one T.V. Krishna Rao filed the suit in O.S. No. 56 of 2008 as against the said Municipality, seeking certain reliefs.

4. In 2009, under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Krishnan was proceeded with for his failure to furnish para-war remarks to the Municipal Standing Counsel for the preparation of a reply affidavit to be filed in the said suit. In his reply, Krishnan denied the allegation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry was pending.

5. Krishnan is to retire on 30.6.2014 on his attaining superannuation. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai (second respondent in the Writ Petition) directed the Tiruvallore Municipal Commissioner to place him under suspension. Accordingly, on 27.6.2014, he was placed under suspension. The delinquent had attained his age of superannuation on 30.6.2014.

6. Challenging his prolonged suspension, Krishnan filed W.P. No. 11915 of 2015 for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the suspension order dated 27.6.2014 and for a direction to pay him terminal benefits on the ground that in the public interest, there is no need to suspend him and since as per Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c), his services beyond the date of his superannuation were not extended, his suspension automatically came to an end.

7. The Municipality contended that enquiry is pending against him and on 11.6.2015, written orders extending his services pending finalisation of enquiry against him has been passed.

8. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition since no order extending his services beyond his date of superannuation has been passed.

9. Aggrieved, the Municipality directed this Writ Appeal.

10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the allegations against him and the pending enquiry, the writ petitioner was suspended. Notwithstanding his superannuation, he is deemed to be in service till the finalisation of the enquiry pending against him. Further, a formal order extending his services till the conclusion of the enquiry was also passed on 11.6.2015. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the Writ Court is unsustainable.

11. However, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner, although enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner as early as in 2009, it was kept pending. And just 3 days before his date of retirement, he was suspended. On 30.6.2014, no positive order extending his services in view of taking a final decision in the pending enquiry proceedings was passed. The learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that on 30.6.2014 since his services were not so extended, his services came to an end on his superannuation. Thereafter, there was no employer-employee relationship as between both. The suspension order on the said date automatically got revoked, vanished into thin air. It cannot be brought back subsequently by extending his services on 11.6.2015. Thus, the order of the Writ Court is in accordance with law.

12. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order of the Writ Court and the materials on record.

13. Now the question is whether even without a positive written order extending the services of a delinquent staff, who is facing enquiry proceedings beyond his date of superannuation, is deemed to be in service enabling the Government to inflict on him punishment based on the outcome of the enquiry proceedings against him.

14. This issue has been considered in seve