ORDER :

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1990 and promoted as Assistant in the year 1997; and was granted selection grade in the post of Assistant in the year 2007; that he was sent on deputation to work as a Ministerial Assistant to conduct the SSLC Examination in Mumbai under proceedings dated 11.03.2019; that alleging he was negligent in stopping the students from resorting to malpractice of copying in the SSLC Exam in the particular Examination Centre to which he was deputed, he was issued with a charge memo dated 10.08.2009 proposing to levy penalty under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short “ TNCS Rules”); that on submitting explanation to the said charge memo on 03.09.2009, the respondents have altered the charge to one under Rule 17(b) vide proceedings dated 06.10.2009 granting him 21 days time to submit his explanation; that even before expiring of 21 days time granted for submitting his explanation, had appointed an Enquiry Officer on 15.10.2009; that he had submitted explanation to the proposed penalty under Rule 17(b) on 30.10.2009; and that the Enquiry Officer completed enquiry and submitted his report on 23.03.2010.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that on completion of the enquiry, he had submitted a representation on 29.03.2010 claiming that enquiry was not conducted properly and certain documents which were sought for by him were not furnished and thus, the enquiry report is vitiated; that the respondents by considering the aforesaid representation of the petitioner had directed for further enquiry on 13.04.2010; and that he had submitted request for furnishing documents on 04.05.2010 and 17.06.2010; that the respondents did not furnish the documents sought for by him and only permitted him to inspect some of the documents and furnished some of the documents on 02.07.2010.

4. The petitioner further contended that thereafter the respondents appointed the new Enquiry Officer on 07.07.2010; that the petitioner submitted written submissions on 15.11.2010; and that the Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his Report on 16.12.2010 stating that the charges against the petitioner are not proved.

5. The petitioner further contended that the disciplinary authority notwithstanding the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, without issuing any disagreement notice and seeking explanation from the petitioner, had passed order dated 09.02.2011, awarding him punishment of reduction of seniority by 10 members below in the seniority till retirement.

6. The petitioner contended that inasmuch as the disciplinary authority had passed the order awarding punishment to him without issuing any disagreement notice, he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition; and that this Court was pleased to set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass order after issuing notice to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner contended that on this Court setting aside the disciplinary authorities order, by which he was awarded punishment, the respondents allowed to retire from service on 30.06.2011, without reserving their right to proceed against him; and that thereafter the impugned order has been passed on 26.10.2012.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contended that the respondents before passing the impugned order though had issued a notice to him, had merely passed the same order which was passed earlier and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.

9. It is also contended that as per Rule 9(b)(2)(a) of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 (for short “Pension Rules”), it is only the Government which is the competent authority to pass order of punishment and si