Mere non-serving of an order to the delinquent official on the same day does not invalidate the entire order if it is otherwise in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent bearing G.O.(3D) No.17 dated 27.06.2014 and G.O.(D) No.262 dated 30.06.2014 – both served on the petitioner at 2 PM on 01.07.2014 by the second respondent subsequent to his retirement on 30.06.2014 – as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to Fundamental Rules 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(c) in substantive compliance, unfair and unreasonable and to quash the same with consequential direction to the first and second respondents to settle the terminal and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.)

The writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order passed by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.17, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 27.06.2014 and G.O.(D) No.262, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 30.06.2014.

2. The writ petitioner was working as Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Special Cell) in the office of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. The petitioner was due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that as on the date of retirement of the writ petitioner on 30.06.2014, the impugned order had not been communicated to him and therefore, the order subsequently communicated cannot be held as valid and on that ground the impugned order of suspension and not allowing the writ petitioner to retire from service, are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the order impugned placing the writ petitioner under suspension and not allowing him to retire from service under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules was issued on the date of retirement on 30.06.2014. However, the said order was communicated to the writ petitioner on the next day on 01.07.2014 and therefore, the order became invalid. The date of communication of the impugned order to the writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of holding the validity of such order.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Madurai Bench of this Court dated 10.02.2017 in WP (MD) No.12072 of 2012. In the said order, the Madurai Bench of this Court observed that the retention order issued was served on the delinquent on 29.06.2012, though the order was passed on 31.05.2012. Relying on the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that though the order of suspension and not allowing the writ petitioner to retire from service was issued on the date of retirement on 30.06.2014, it was not served on the petitioner on the same day and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the order passed by the Government was duly communicated to the writ petitioner and he evaded receipt and it was subsequently affixed. In this regard, paragraph-12 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reveals that a direction to dispose of the TDP case pending against the writ petitioner was issued by this Court on 03.04.2014. The same was concluded and the findings have been duly sent to the first respondent. On 30.06.2014, at about 04.00 P.M., the dealing Assistant of the office of the second respondent went to the petitioner's chamber to inform about the receipt of Government Orders dated 27.06.2014 and 30.06.2014 respectively from the Government. At that time, the petitioner was not available in his chamber. When approached again at 05.15 P.M., it was informed that the wh