The central legal point established is that continuing disciplinary proceedings after an employee's retirement, without specific enabling provisions, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

P.D. Dinakaran,J

This appeal arises out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22. 2004 made in W.P.No.3965 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the charge memo dated 29. 1997 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.

1. A vignette of the facts is suffice. The appellant was working as Assistant Manager (Industrial Relations) in the first respondent/Co-operative Society. On 29. 1997, the first respondent issued a charge memo to the appellant alleging that he had regularised the services of casual workers in anticipation of Boards approval. On 210. 1997, the appellant submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. The first respondent, thereafter, issued an advance intimation notice on 11. 1997 stating that the appellant is to retire on account of superannuation on the afternoon of 1. 1998. Subsequently, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 1. 1998, permitted the appellant to retire from the services of the first respondent on 1. 1998, of course, on condition that the appellant should give an undertaking letter in stamp paper to make good loss, if any, sustained by the first respondent due to the negligence committed by the appellant during his tenure of service.

2. 2. There was no headway in the matter and the first respondent maintained complete silence for over five and half years since the retirement of the appellant, viz., till 28. 2003, on which date a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent requiring the appellant to show cause as to why suitable action should not be initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder for recovering the loss accrued by the first respondent, due to the violation committed by the appellant in regularising casual labourers without approval of the Board. The appellant submitted his explanation on 9. 2003, denying the allegations levelled against him and sought the first respondent to withdraw the notice dated 28. 2003.

2. 3. Unconvinced by the explanation dated 9. 2003 of the appellant, the first respondent issued another show cause notice on 9. 2003 stating that the first respondent sustained heavy loss to the tune of Rs.7,92,000/-and required the appellant to submit his explanation within 7 days, failing which it was proposed to recover the loss as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The appellant, by explanation dated 19. 2003, reiterated the averments made in his earlier explanation dated 9. 2003 and requested to drop initiation of any further proceedings.

4. Be that be, second respondent, issued an enquiry notice dated 30.1.2004, stating that he had been appointed as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant in the charge memo dated 26. 1997, and required the petitioner to attend the enquiry scheduled on 2. 2004 at 3.00 p.m.

5. Alleging that the first respondent had initiated domestic enquiry after his retirement on 1. 1998, for the alleged commission of irregularity said to have been committed on 112. 1994, after lapse of more than 9 years, which is contrary to the provisions of law, the appellant preferred writ petition in W.P.No.3965 of 2004 seeking issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the charge memo dated 29. 1997 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.

6. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 22. 2004 made in W.P.No.3965 of 2004, observing that the order impugned is only a charge memo, required the appellant to submit his explanation and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.

3. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We leafed through the grounds of appeal. We find that the main ground, aid of which is sought for by the appellant, is that the first respondent, having permi