"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks". More recently, the European Convention on Human Rights in Article 6(1) promises that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

2. Writ petition No.21428 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the rejection of retirement benefits to the petitioner, passed by the first respondent by the order, dated 13.10.2016.

2.1. This order is assailed on the following grounds:-

(i) When the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by virtue of G.O.(D) No.90, dated 27.04.2015 and G.O.(D) No.91, dated 27.04.2015, have been dropped, there is no justification to deny the payment of retirement benefits.

(ii) The order passed by the first respondent is a non-speaking order and the order is also on account of non-application of mind; the reason being that when the petitioner attained superannuation on 31.01.2014, the sanction for prosecution was given only on 11.03.2014, i.e., after the retirement; mere sanction of prosecution cannot be a bar for settling the retirement benefits.

(iii) The non-payment of retirement benefits is against the Fundamental Rule 56.

3. W.P.(MD) No.21429 of 2016 has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 22.01.2014, by which the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service and he was placed under suspension on the ground that grave charges in two disciplinary cases are pending against him.

4. Certain amount of money was seized from the custody of: (a) Forest Ranger, namely, T. Jayachandran, (b) Superintendent and Range Officer, namely, Baskaran; (c) Cashier, K. Manoranjitha Kaliselvi; (d) Assistant, K. Rashia Begum; and (e) Office Assistant, P. Chidambaram.

4.1. Since the petitioner was the Regional Manager, he was also implicated in the Criminal Case. The charge against the petitioner is that unaccounted amount of Rs.1,94,100/- was seized from his custody. The petitioner gave his explanation. Though the criminal case was registered, there was no further action, as there was no evidence. Instead of criminal action, Departmental action was recommended. After obtaining directions from this Court, seeking early disposal of the Departmental proceedings, the proceedings commenced and ended by dropping of charges (through G.O.(D) Nos.90 and 91, dated 27.04.2015).

5. W.P.(MD) No.21430 of 2016 has been filed to quash G.O.(3D) No.5, dated 31.01.2014, by which the petitioner was not permitted to retire. This order is under challenge on the ground that it is against G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 08.06.2007.

6. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are common and inter-connected, these writ petitions are heard together and common order is passed.

Brief facts:-

7. The petitioner, M. Nainar Mohammed, attained superannuation in the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest on 31.01.2014. He was not permitted to retire on 31.01.2014 and this order came to be passed in view of the order of suspension passed on 22.01.2014, in respect of contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Later, the departmental proceedings were dropped by two Government Orders Nos.90 and 91, dated 27.04.2015.

7.1. Even thereafter, as the retirement benefits were not disbursed, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.8391 of 2015. This Court directed the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits, in tune with the statement of the Government that the retirement benefits would be disbursed within a reasonable time and further directed that retirement benefits shall be disbursed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7.2. But, by the ord