ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was recruited on 01.08.1983 and was due for retirement on 28.02.2015; that while in service, a charge memo dated 13.03.2011 was issued to him; that on enquiry officer submitting his report, the disciplinary authority has passed the order dated 11.11.2013 awarding him punishment; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment, he had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 06.01.2014; and that the said appeal is pending for consideration.

3. Petitioner contended that while the appeal filed by him against the order of punishment dated 11.11.2013 was pending consideration, the first respondent in exercise of powers under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, suo moto revised the order of the disciplinary authority vide G.O. (2D) No.7 MSME [EII(2)]dated 24.02.2015; and that the respondents thereafter vide proceedings No.47549/EG4/2007 dated 26.02.2015, placed the petitioner under suspension and did not allow him to retire on due date of retirement i.e., 28.02.2015.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, the respondents taking note of acquittal recorded in criminal case vide proceedings dated 17.07.2017, had revoked his suspension and allowed him to retire from the date on which he had attained the age of superannuation i.e., 28.02.2015.

5. Petitioner further contended that the first respondent thereafter had once again issued proceedings dated 04.01.2018, imposing punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500/- per month for one year, as he was allowed to retire from service retrospectively.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that aggrieved by the aforesaid order awarding punishment of cut in pension, passed by the first respondent, he had filed an appeal as provided under the Rules on 07.03.2019; and that the said appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority, without taking into consideration that initiation of disciplinary proceeding initially by issuing article of charges on 13.03.2011 itself is vitiated and thus, the first respondent could not have passed the order dated 04.01.2018.

7. Petitioner further contended that the Appellate Authority without considering that the order by which, he was awarded punishment is wholly unsustainable in law, without applying his mind, had rejected the appeal filed by him, holding that no valid reasons/grounds are shown in the appeal and the objection of the petitioner is not acceptable, which action it is contended is without considering the pleas taken by him in the appeal.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, he had filed review to the Government; and that the Revisional Authority vide his proceedings G.O.(2D) No.81 dated 04.12.2020 had also rejected the said petition without considering, that the disciplinary authority as well as the first Appellate Authority had failed to take note of the fact that as the charge memo is issued on invalid basis, the subsequent proceedings would stand vitiated.

9. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that since, the order of the disciplinary authority passed on 04.01.2018 as well as the order of appellate authority and review order did not consider the aforesaid fact, the petitioner is entitled to assail the said order by the present writ petition. 10. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.

11. Respondents, by the counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on 13.03.2011; that on petitioner submitting his explanation to the same on 01.06.2011, the respondents appointed the enquiry officer; that the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry into the articles of