IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WP Nos. 10070 and 10074 of 2021 and WMP Nos. 10704 and 10708 OF 2021 W.P.No.10070 of 2021:

C.Ekambaram ..Petitioner in both W.Ps Vs

1.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records Chennai -1.

2.The Regional Deputy Director of Survey and land Records Chennai -5.

3.The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Chepauk, Chennai -5.

.Respondents in both W.Ps Prayer in W.P.No.10070 of 2021 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3 /5034 /2019 dated 09/01/2020 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2 / 2114 /2020 dated 08/09/2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the period of suspension form 21/05/2010 to 30/04/2012 as duty for all purposes, draw and disburse the pay and allowances within a reasonable time.

Prayer in WP No. 10074 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.L4 /23963 /2015 dated 01/11/2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to regulate the period of suspension from 21/05/2010 to 30/04/2012 as duty for all purposes, draw and disburse the pay and allowances within a reasonable time.

For Petitioner in both Ms.R. Deepika Sonali W.Ps:

for Mr. M.Muthappan For Respondents in both Mrs. V. Yamunadevi, SGP W.Ps:

COMMON ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the second respondent in Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/2114/2020 dated 08.09.2020 confirming the orders of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/5034/2019 dated 09.01.2020 with a consequential direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 21.05.2010 to 30.04.2012 as on-duty for all purposes, draw and disburse the pay and allowances within a reasonable time.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was due for retirement on 30.04.2012, the respondent by proceedings dated 26.04.2012 extended the service of the petitioner on the ground that there is a pending criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act vide C.C.No.22 of 2011 and did not allow him to retire from service.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the date when the respondent took a decision not to allow the petitioner to retire on the date of attaining the age of superannuation, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him; that the criminal case which formed the basis for the respondents to extend his service, resulted in acquittal on 31.08.2016.

5. The petitioner further contended that on the criminal court recording acquittal in C.C.No.22 of 2011 dated 31.08.2016, the respondents vide proceedings dated 21.10.2019 revoked the order of suspension and allowed him to retire from service w.e.f. actual date of retirement i.e., 30.04.2012.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents after he securing acquittal in criminal case had initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo on 13.10.2017 under Rule 17 (b) of Rules Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and appointed an enquiry officer who submitted his enquiry report on 07.09.2018 holding that the charges against the petitioner are not been proved; that the respondent authority not satisfied with the enquiry report, had called for second enquiry report, and the Enquiry Officer submitted the revised enquiry report on 07.01.2019 holding the charges are partly proved and on the aforesaid basis, the first respondent has passed t