M. VENUGOPAL, J.

Prologue:

1. The Petitioner has focused the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records in G.O.Ms.No.360 Public (Special A) Department dated 24.04.2017 passed by the 1st Respondent in dismissing him from service and to quash the same.

2. Seminal Facts:

2.1. The Petitioner was selected and appointed as District Munsif cum - Judicial Magistrate through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was posted as Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram on 09.11.1988. He served as Judicial Magistrate, District Munsif, Sub-Judge and District Judge in various places and lastly served as Principal District Judge, Tiruppur from 14.07.2012. After completion of 58 years of service, he was to retire on 30.11.2012. However, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to extend his service beyond 58 years by the Proceedings in R.O.C.14/2012-Con.B2 dated 23.11.2012 by taking into account of his past records of service. He retired from service after attaining the superannuation on 30.11.2014.

2.2. The Petitioner was placed under suspension from service with effect from 16.09.2014 by virtue of the proceedings in R.O.C.No.433/2013/VC,118/2014/VC 441/2014/VC, 449/2014/ VCand 519/2014/VC in C.No.90/2013/VC/B2 dated 15.09.2014 and the 2nd Respondent in view of the disciplinary proceedings contemplated to be initiated against him on some allegations. He had not received any further communication from the 2nd Respondent with regard to the alleged disciplinary proceedings till date of retirement on 30.11.2014. During December 2014, he received an order in R.O.C.No.433/2013/VC, 118/2014/VC 441/2014/VC, 449/2014/VC and 519/2014/VC in C.No.90/2013/VC/ B2 dated 28.11.2014 from the 2nd Respondent retaining him in service as 30.11.2014 for the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him.

2.3. It is the stand of the Petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu, being the Appointing Authority for the post of all Subordinate Judicial Officers including the District Judges, alone is competent to pass an order to retain the service of a District Judge under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). That apart, the order of this Court retaining him in service beyond 30.11.2014 reached the office of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur only on 01.12.2014 and it was served on him in December 2014 i.e. beyond the date of retirement and such order ought to have been served on him on or before 30.11.2014. As such, the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in the above proceedings retaining him in service beyond 30.11.2014 is irregular and the disciplinary proceedings initiated thereafter by issuing the show cause notice dated 26.12.2014 is an illegal one, besides the same being not a maintainable one.

2.4. According to the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent/High Court, Madras issued an Official Memorandum in R.O.C.No.83/2014/ VC dated 26.12.2014 calling for explanations from him on the complaint of one N.Thangavel of Tiruppur dated 10.02.2014 and to show cause as to why charges should not be framed against him on the said complaint. As a matter of fact, a copy of the complaint from the said N.Thangaavel alone was enclosed with the Official Memorandum.

2.5. A perusal of complaint shows that the Complainant (P.W.1) is the father of the minor victim girl involved in the concerned Crime No.225 of 2013, Gudimangalam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 449, 376 and 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Also, in the complaint, it was alleged that in the Complaint, he, as the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur released the Accused one Arun Kumar involved in the case on bail after receiving huge amount, that the Public Prosecutor failed to oppose the bail and that the Accused was threatening the witnesses, while coming to Police Station.

2.6. The Petitioner ascertained that the alleged occurrence in the case took place on 03.11.2013 and that the