Judgment :- In W.P.No:1629 of 2000 the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai in G.D.C.No.E1/52534/97, dated 29.10.1999 quash the same and direct the respondents to give all consequential service benefits with a further direction to settle pension, gratuity and GPF which has accrued due to the petitioner had he not been illegally dismissed from service with 24% interest per annum within a time that may be stipulated by this court. 2. In W.P.No:2803 of 2000, the very same petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the proceedings of the records relating to the charge memo dated 30.12.1996 made in G.D.C.No.E1/46643/96 issued by the second respondent Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, quash the same and forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memo. 3. Both the writ petitions are taken up with the consent of counsel on either side. Heard Mr.G.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has rendered 36years of service in the second respondent-Corporation and his services have been recognised as best, honest and efficient. The petitioner claim that he was given the maintenance of establishment Section of Buildings Department. During the said period renovation work in the second floor of the Corporation Building was carried out well before the Council Meeting. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 28.4.1997, which was two days just prior to the due date of his retirement. The suspension was on the premise that it was observed that lot of irregularities had taken place while executing the improvement work in the Council Hall of Rippon Buildings. The petitioner was due for retirement on 30.4.1997 and no orders of extension was passed. Nor an order has been passed by the respondents not permitting him to retire on attaining the age of 58 years in terms of Rule 56 (a) and (c.) of Fundamental Rules. Therefore it is to be deemed that the petitioner has retired from service by the end of 30.4.1997 and thereafter the respondents have no right to continue the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore it is to be deemed that the petitioner has retired from service by the end of 30.4.1997 and thereafter the respondents have no right to continue the disciplinary proceedings. 5. On 24.10.1997, the second respondent issued a charge memo clamping as many as 64 charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objections to the charge memo by his explanation dated 5.12.1997 denying each and every imputation. The petitioner persuaded the second respondent to pay subsistence allowance by number of representations but they are of no avail. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3022 of 1999 for a direction to pay subsistence allowance. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the second respondent shall complete the enquiry as early as possible. 6. After a lapse of one and half years the Chief Engineer (General) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and two others. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry submitted his report on 28.12.1998. The petitioner claim that the Enquiry Officer has not reported any adverse findings against him. The enquiry officer seems to have suggested to the second respondent to form a Team of Engineers to check the entire work done in the presence of the petitioner. The second respondent thereafter appointed a Committee of three Engineers. The said Committee also according to the petitioner has not submitted any adverse report against the petitioner. The report was submitted on 10.2.1999. There is no provision to appoint such an expert committee. 7. The petitioner understand that he has been exonerated of all the charges by the enquiry officer as well as by the Committee. The petitioner made a number of representations requesting the second respondent to revoke the order of suspension. Thereafter the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.1999 signed on 8.12.1999 was served on the petitioner administering warning and holding that the period of suspension shall be treated as leave for which the petitioner is eligible. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said proceedings. 8. In W.P.NO;2803 of 2000, the very same petitioner seeks to challenge the charges framed on 30.12.1996 by the second respondent. By the said charge memo, three charges were framed against the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation which he has submitted on 20.1.1997. The third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 8. In W.P.NO;2803 of 2000, the very same petitioner seeks to challenge the charges framed on 30.12.1996 by the second respondent. By the said charge memo, three charges were framed against the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation which he has submitted on 20.1.1997. The third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The third respondent called upon the petitioner and the other co-delinquent officials to appear for an enquiry on 26.5.1997. The petitioner and other co delinquents appeared before the third respondent on 26.5.1997 an the third respondent concluded the enquiry. But thereafter nothing was heard. 9. The petitioner, as already stated was due to retire on 30.4.1997 and he was placed under suspension on 28.4.197. No order has been passed by the respondents extending the service of the petitioner and not permitting him to retire in terms of FR.46(a) and (c.) of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on 30.4.1997. Hence the second respondent has no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 10. In W.P.No;1629 of 2000 the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the second respondent in respect of a different set of charges numbering 64. When the said writ petition was pending the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 31.1.2000 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 14.2.2000 for an enquriy with respect to the second set of charges. As the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 30.4.1997, the respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to frame charges or continue the disciplinary proceedings. The relationship of employer and employee stands snapped and therefore there could be no further proceedings at all. At any rate, there is inordinate delay and the proceedings cannot be continued which are stale and belated. There was an earlier enquiry on 26.5.197 and thereafter nothing has been heard about it, though it was concluded on that day itself. The petitioner also refuted the charges and denies the very imputations made against him. 11. The petitioner was due for retirement on 30.4.1997 and just two days prior to retirement he was placed under suspension. There was an earlier enquiry on 26.5.197 and thereafter nothing has been heard about it, though it was concluded on that day itself. The petitioner also refuted the charges and denies the very imputations made against him. 11. The petitioner was due for retirement on 30.4.1997 and just two days prior to retirement he was placed under suspension. It is also pointed out that either on 30.4.1997 or on the following day no order has been passed in terms of Rule 56 (a) and (c.) of the Fundamental Rules not permitting the petitioner to retire or extending the services to continue the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated is without jurisdiction and illegal. Though the petitioner has submitted the explanation denying the charges, an enquiry officer was appointed. 12. The petitioner was served with a charge memorandum and in respect of which he was called upon to appear on 14.2.2000 for an enquiry with respect to awarding of contract to contractors for construction of Building for housing the Offices of Division Nos.39 and 139 without the approval of the Special Officer and Council. The second respondent in W.P.No.2803 of 2000 has been appointed as the enquiry officer. As the petitioner's service has not been extended beyond 30.4.1997, he is deemed to have retired from service and there being no relationship the respondents have no authority to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. 13. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the very charge memo itself and also prayed this court to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings. The very issuance of charge memo dated 30.12.1996 and attempt on the part of the respondents to proceed even after retirement is impermissible, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the orders of suspension comes to an end on 30.4.1997 and when there being no extension of service nor there is a direction that the petitioner has not been permitted to retire as provided for in the Fundamental Rules, there could be no further proceedings at all by the respondents. 14. In W.P.No.1629 of 2000 the second respondent has filed a counter. According to the second respondent, the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and charges were framed under Rule 10(b) of the Chennai Corporation Service (CCA) Rules 1970. 14. In W.P.No.1629 of 2000 the second respondent has filed a counter. According to the second respondent, the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and charges were framed under Rule 10(b) of the Chennai Corporation Service (CCA) Rules 1970. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.4.1997 with respect to certain alleged irregularities noticed in the renovation of Corporation Council Hall. In respect of the said charges the petitioner was severely warned by the second respondent on 2.12.1999. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.4.197 and his superannuation was due on 30.4.1997. Since the petitioner has been receiving subsistence allowance even after 30.4.1997 his services are construed to be extended beyond 30.4.1997. The second respondent is competent to pursue the disciplinary action against the petitioner according to the Rules. The petitioner will be paid subsistence allowance. As the earlier enquiry officer expressed difficulties a new officer namely the then Deputy Commissioner Mr.T.K.Ramachandran IAS was appointed. 15. The said enquiry officer suggested to nominate the Chief Engineer since the charges against the petitioner involve technical matters. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.12.1998 merely by observing and without conducting enquiry with the charged officials and without obtaining any written statement from them and submitted a report suggesting that a team of engineers may check up and measure the work executed by the charged officials. A Team of engineers were directed to evaluate the work. The Team/Committee submitted a report which was taken as part and parcel of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which was considered by the disciplinary authority. 16. It is admitted that the report of the engineers Committee will not bind the disciplinary authority. The second respondent referred the matter to the first respondent for passing orders as the disciplinary proceedings is under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The Disciplinary Authority examined the explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the enqiry report and concluded that had the petitioner observed the correct formalities, with reference to the rules in a disciplined and proper way, things would not have happened and taking a lenient view, the petitioner was let off with severe warning considering the attainment of superannuation. The Commissioner of the second respondent Corporation is competent to impose minor punishment namely warning taking into account of the fact of the petitioner's service to the Corporation and his date of superannuation. The Commissioner of the second respondent Corporation is competent to impose minor punishment namely warning taking into account of the fact of the petitioner's service to the Corporation and his date of superannuation. Charges were not dropped, but the petitioner was warned. Hence there are no merits in W.P.No.1629 of 2000. 17. In W.P.No:2803 of 2000, the second respondent-Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai has filed a separate counter. After referring to the earlier charges, placing under suspension etc., the second respondent has stated that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and he is responsible to see the actual resolution passed by the competent authority and orders of the competent authority should have been obtained for calling for retenders. Though there was no monetary loss to the Corporation the fact remains that the same contractor has got the work in re-tender, besides procedural lapses. 18. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to scrutinise the tender files which lead to issue of work orders to the contractor for some other work. The contractor commenced work and only thereafter tender was rejected. Certain irregularities were noticed in the execution of the work relating to renovation of the Council Hall as well as other works. The petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance. The Chief Engineer (General) was nominated as the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner and two others. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.12.1998. As the Chief Engineer suggested for appointment of a Committee of Engineers the same was resorted to. 19. The findings of enquiry officer is only to assist the disciplinary authority to pass orders and the disciplinary authority is not supposed to pass orders duly accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority examined the explanation submitted by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that had the petitioner observed the correct formalities in a disciplined and proper way, the irregularities would not have happened. By taking a lenient view, the petitioner was let off with severe warning. The enquriy officer's report was not furnished to the petitioner. There are no merits in the writ petition. 20. The first respondent-State Government in W.P.No.1629 of 2000 merely adopted the counter filed by the second respondent. 21. Heard Mr.Mr.G.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Ms.V.Velumani, AGP appearing for the first respondent. 22. There are no merits in the writ petition. 20. The first respondent-State Government in W.P.No.1629 of 2000 merely adopted the counter filed by the second respondent. 21. Heard Mr.Mr.G.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Ms.V.Velumani, AGP appearing for the first respondent. 22. After the first set of charges were framed and pending, just two days prior to retirement the petitioner was placed under suspension in respect of second set of charges. An enquiry officer was appointed in respect of the second set of charges namely, irregularities in the renovation of Council Hall. There are as many as 64 imputations have been detailed. The Chief Engineer who was appointed as the enquiry officer has submitted a report and on his suggestion a Committee of Engineers were also appointed. Without communicating the enquiry officer's report and affording an opportunity to the petitioner, he has been administered with a warning. 23. The report of the Committee of Engineers also has not been disclosed which is violative of principles of natural justice as well as rules relating to Discipline and Appeal Rules, as well as CCA Rules. Concedingly, the respondent has not proceeded with both the set of charges simultaneously, but only in respect of council hall renovation work, the petitioner has been warned. 24. In respect of the first set of charges, an enquiry officer has been appointed long after framing of charges and long after the retirement of the petitioner and therefore it is contended that the respondents cannot proceed further with the charges as the suspension will not survive beyond 30th of April 1997 in the absence of any order or proceedings extending the service of the petitioner and not permitting him to retire in terms of the Fundamental Rules which governs the petitioner's service. Therefore it is contended that the action of the second respondent Corporation in proceeding further with the charges is illegal, without jurisdiction and charges have to be quashed besides it is contended that the charges are being baseless, groundless and highly belated. 25. Therefore it is contended that the action of the second respondent Corporation in proceeding further with the charges is illegal, without jurisdiction and charges have to be quashed besides it is contended that the charges are being baseless, groundless and highly belated. 25. The following points arise for consideration:- (A) Whether the impugned proceeding administering a severe warning by the second respondent on 29.10.1999 and treating the period of suspension as leave to which the petitioner is eligible is liable to be quashed as violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Discipline and Appeal Rules and vitiated by non application of mind? (B) Whether the second respondent could proceed against the petitioner after 30th April 1997 without extending the service of the petitioner and not permitting him to retire with respect to charges framed? (C.) Whether the second respondent has jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner on and after 30.4.1997 when no orders have been passed extending the service of the petitioner and not permitting him to retire? (D) Whether the procedure adopted in the Domestic Enquiry is illegal and contrary to the Discipline and Appeal Rules and liable to be quashed? (E) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of mandamus prayed for directing the respondents to settle the terminal benefits, gratuity etc.,? 26. The petitioner is governed by the Madras City Municipal Corporation Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1970 as he falls under the category of "Members of a Service" as defined in Rule 2(ii). Rule 6 of the said Rules provides for imposition of penalties both minor and major. Minor penalties being Censure, withholding of increment or promotion and recovery from pay and the remaining being major penalties. "Censure" classified as one of the minor penalty and Warning in terms of the said Rules is not a penalty. Yet, the second respondent has administered a warning and ordered that the period of suspension shall be treated as one spent on leave. This results in deprivation of valuable rights in respect of leave period which the petitioner could very well encash and avail. When the petitioner is not guilty of the charges as framed it is rather extraordinary for the second respondent to hold that he is taking a lenient view and find him guilty of certain alleged latches. 27. In this case, proceedings were initiated under Rule 10(b) for imposition of major penalty. When the petitioner is not guilty of the charges as framed it is rather extraordinary for the second respondent to hold that he is taking a lenient view and find him guilty of certain alleged latches. 27. In this case, proceedings were initiated under Rule 10(b) for imposition of major penalty. Therefore on the petitioner denying the charges, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted domestic enquiry and submitted his report. The enquriy officer's report has not been admittedly communicated to the petitioner nor an opportunity has been given to the petitioner to state his objections with respect to the findings reported by the enquiry officer. This is being pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner and it is contended that this is in violative of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ramzan Kahn's case and B.Karunakar's case. 28. Charges were framed under Rule 10(5) of the Chennai Corporation Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1970, which would indicate that it is for imposing a major punishment. The Chief Engineer was appointed as the enquiry officer and he has submitted his report. The enquiry officer has suggested to get a technical opinion from a Team of Engineers before deciding on the charges levelled against the delinquent. Therefore, it is not clear from the enquiry officer's report whether the enquiry officer has reported a finding of guilt against the petitioner or not. The technical team also submitted its findings. What is the nature of findings reported by the technical team itself is not disclosed. While the petitioner asserts that the enquiry officer has exonerated him and so also the Technical Team. 29. That apart, it is rightly pointed out that there is no provision in the Chennai Corporation Servants (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules 1970 to appoint a technical team of engineers to submit a report with respect to the alleged misconduct or omission or commission on the part of the petitioner. There is no such provision, nor the enquiry officer has taken the assistance of such a team of engineers. But the disciplinary authority alone had the benefit of the enquiry officer's report as well as report submitted by the team of engineers, contents of which were not disclosed to the petitioner. There is no such provision, nor the enquiry officer has taken the assistance of such a team of engineers. But the disciplinary authority alone had the benefit of the enquiry officer's report as well as report submitted by the team of engineers, contents of which were not disclosed to the petitioner. That was the technical opinion given and under what authority such technical team has also been constituted is not clear. There is nothing to show that the technical team has given an opportunity to the petitioner before submitting its report and hat is the contents of the report has not been disclosed. 30. It is seen from the impugned order, the report submitted by the enquiry officer and technical opinion given by the constituted committee were also taken into consideration. This is in violation of principles of natural justice. That apart, what are the imputations or charges for which the petitioner has been found guilty is not disclosed. It has been merely stated that had the petitioner observed correct formalities with reference to the rules in a disciplined and proper way these things would not have happened. This is not the charge for which the petitioner has been proceeded. Therefore, neither the enquiring authority has found the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him nor the disciplinary authority has found the petitioner guilty of a misconduct, but has merely stated that had the petitioner observed the correct formalities with reference to the rules in a disciplined and proper way these things would not have happened. This is not a finding against the petitioner much less a misconduct. It is also stated that the petitioner has attained the age of retirement. 31. The order impugned dated 28.10.1997 cannot be sustained at all for the following reasons:- (a) The petitioner has not been found guilty of not even one of the charges framed against him. (b) The enquiry officer has not reported a finding of guilty of one or more of the charges. (c.) The technical team also has not found the petitioner guilty of a misconduct or commission or omission. (d) Neither the enquiry officer's report nor the technical committee's report which are sought to be relied upon has been communicated to the petitioner and he had not been given an opportunity to state his objections. (c.) The technical team also has not found the petitioner guilty of a misconduct or commission or omission. (d) Neither the enquiry officer's report nor the technical committee's report which are sought to be relied upon has been communicated to the petitioner and he had not been given an opportunity to state his objections. (e) The enquiry officer's report and the technical committee's report is being relied upon which is in violation of principles of natural justice. (f) The petitioner is not guilty of charges framed against him, but it is recorded that had the petitioner observed the correct formalities in a disciplined and in a proper way these things would not have happened. This is not a charge, nor it is a misconduct warranting imposition of any punishment. 32. That apart, what has been imposed is a severe warning which is not a punishment at all under the Chennai corporation (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Yet, based on such warning the respondent has ordered the entire period of suspension to be treated as a leave to which the petitioner is eligible. The petitioner has been placed under suspension just two days prior to his reaching the age of superannuation. That being the position, in the absence of any order extending the service of the petitioner or declining to permit him to retire or demit office such a punishment cannot be imposed and the respondent has no authority or jurisdiction under the Rules. 33. When the service has not been extended the suspension comes to an end on the date of retirement and there is no escape. It is not as if proceedings have been continued under the Pension Rules or any other Rule which would confer power on the respondent after retirement of the petitioner. To treat the period of suspension as leave, it is pointed out rightly that unless the petitioner is found guilty of the charges and a penalty either major or minor is imposed, no direction could be issued by the disciplinary authority to treat the period of suspension as one eligible for leave. 34. The respondent has also concluded that the petitioner has attained the age of retirement which would mean that the petitioner has been permitted to retire and therefore no proceedings at all could be continued nor a punishment could be imposed against the petitioner, unless the rules provided for. 34. The respondent has also concluded that the petitioner has attained the age of retirement which would mean that the petitioner has been permitted to retire and therefore no proceedings at all could be continued nor a punishment could be imposed against the petitioner, unless the rules provided for. The counsel for the respondent is unable to point out any rule in this respect. The counsel for the respondent merely suggested that the proceedings could be continued under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. This court is not in a position to sustain the same as nowhere it has been disclosed or stated or mentioned that the proceedings are being continued under the Pension Rules. 35. Hence, the points are answered in favour of petitioner and W.P.No.1629 of 2000 is allowed as prayed for. 36. In W.P.No.2803 of 2000, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge memo dated 30.12.1996. In all three charges were framed on 30.12.1996 in respect of alleged omission or commission which relate to May, 1996. The said charges have also been framed under Rule 10(b) of the Chennai Corporation Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1970. After framing of the charge on 30.12.1996, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20th January 1997 denying the charges. On 24.2.1997, the enquiry officer was appointed. On 13.5.197 the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer on 26.5.1997 which the petitioner has complied. On 31.1.2000 once again the petitioner was required to appear before the enquiry officer. On 14.2.2000 and thereafter nothing has been done and the petitioner has come before this court challenging the charges. 37. As already pointed out, the petitioner who was due for retirement on 30.4.1997 been placed under suspension on 28.4.1997. The order of suspension passed on 28.4.197 will not enure after 30.4.1997 unless a specific order has been passed by the respondents not permitting to retire and extending the service of the petitioner. No such order has been passed by the respondent or for that matter by the Government. Even according to the respondent-Commissioner, the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 30.4.1997. 38. In the absence of any order declining to permit the petitioner to retire or extending the service of the petitioner, the petitioner is deemed to have been permitted to retire. Even according to the respondent-Commissioner, the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 30.4.1997. 38. In the absence of any order declining to permit the petitioner to retire or extending the service of the petitioner, the petitioner is deemed to have been permitted to retire. No order has been passed by the respondent or by the Government to the effect that the proceedings are being continued under the Pension Rules. No provision has been pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that even after attaining age of superannuation and without any further order, there could be continuation of the proceedings. There is nothing to show that the respondents have taken action or the action is deemed to be continued under Pension Rules. Totally there is no orders at all. Nor the counsel for the respondents could lay his fingers to any of the Rules which would enable the respondents to continue the proceedings. 39. Even in the order which is impugned in W.P.NO.1629 of 2000, it has been stated that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and therefore it is clear that the petitioner has been allowed to retire or deemed to have retired and he is no longer in service. The jurisdiction on the part of the respondents to impose the punishment or continue the proceedings comes to an end on and after 30.4.1997. Therefore even in respect of the charges which were framed on 30.12.1996 there could be no further proceedings at all. That apart, the charges relate to the alleged incident of May, 1996 for which in December, 1996 charges were framed. Thereafter the enquiry officer appointed called upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry and nothing has been moved thereafter. 40. The Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 32, held thus:- "....Before the delinquent reaches superannuation, the enquiry should be got expedited and appropriate order passed on the basis of the findings reached by the disciplinary authority. In case the delinquent attempts to drag the proceedings or he does not cooperate in the completion of the enquiry, after giving necessary warning in writing, suitable course appropriate to the facts is required to be adopted. In case the delinquent attempts to drag the proceedings or he does not cooperate in the completion of the enquiry, after giving necessary warning in writing, suitable course appropriate to the facts is required to be adopted. In case it is not possible to complete the enquiry or to pass the final order, the suspension should be extended and re-employment ordered or the latter extended and to pass appropriate orders during extended period. In case it is found that either of those courses, is neither feasible nor possible and allowed the delinquent to retire from service, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to record in its order that "but for the retirement he would have passed on order of dismissal or removal from service...". 41. In Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., (1999) 3 SCC 666 , it has been held thus;- "7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 42. In N.M.Somasundaram Vs,. The DGP etc., reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 120, while considering Rule 56 (a) and (c) which rule is also relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, a Division Bench of this court held thus:- "7.The decision in this case revolves around on the interpretation to be placed on Rule 56(a) and ¸ of the Rules as it stood at the relevant point of time, viz., on 31.12.1984. The said rule reads thus:- "56(a) The date of compulsory retirement of Government servant, whether he holds a substantive or officiating post, is the date on which he attains the age of fifty eight years. The said rule reads thus:- "56(a) The date of compulsory retirement of Government servant, whether he holds a substantive or officiating post, is the date on which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He shall not be retained in service after the age except with the sanction of the Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, but he shall not be retained after the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances:- Provided that this clause shall not apply to Government Servants who are treated as in superior service for the purpose of these rules but as in basic service for the purpose of pension such Government servants as well as all Basic Government Servants shall retire on attaining the age of sixty years. (c.) A Government Servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be required or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is conducted and a final order passed thereon by the competent authority." 8. A reading of Rule 56(a) and (c,) together would lead to an irresistible conclusion that in order to retain a public servant or a Government servant in service on attaining his age of superanuation, a positive order in writing shall have to be passed by the Government giving the reasons as to on what grounds, which should be on public grounds, a government servant is retained in service. No doubt Rule 56(c.) says that a Government Servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be required or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement. It further says that he should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is conducted and a final order passed thereon by the Competent Authority. Therefore even though it may not be necessary to permit to Government Servant against against whom a disciplinary proceedings is pending, to retire from service, in order to retain him in service for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings a positive order in wiring is required to be passed. The public ground for passing the said order is the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. But, what is necessary is that there should be an order passed by the Government not permitting a Government servant to retire from service. The public ground for passing the said order is the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. But, what is necessary is that there should be an order passed by the Government not permitting a Government servant to retire from service. The instruction under Rule 56(c) also does not help the State Government. The instruction reads thus:- "Whether a Government servant referred to in clause (c) is fully exonerated or not he shall be considered to have been on extension of service for the period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of termination of the proceedings. During such an extension of service, the service rights which have accrued to the Government servant, shall freeze at the level reached on the date of compulsory retirement and he salary during the period shall not exceed the pension which has accrued to the Government servant on the date". It only provides that in a case where a Government servant is exonerated or not, he shall be considered to have been on extension of service for the period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of termination of the proceedings. The further words in this instruction are, during such an extension of service, the service rights which have accrued to the Government Servant shall freeze at the level reached on the date of compulsory retirement and the salary during that period shall not exceed he pension, which has accrued to the Government Servant on the date. The instruction only takes away the effect, if any, of the orders passed by the State Government in writing, retaining a Government servant even after attaining the age of superannaution. Therefore, it states that even retention does not help him for obtaining any service benefits and those service benefits will freeze on the date he attains the age of superannuation." In the light of the above binding pronouncements, the point deserves to be answered in favour of the petitioner. 43. Normally when two proceedings are pending, they should be continued simultaneously or one by one without any break. But in this case, after the conclusion of the latter charges, the earlier charges are sought to be revived or resurrected though the petitioner is deemed to have retired and there could be no continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 44. But in this case, after the conclusion of the latter charges, the earlier charges are sought to be revived or resurrected though the petitioner is deemed to have retired and there could be no continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 44. Thus the charge memo dated 30.12.1996 though it may refer to certain omissions, but it is the petitioner who found out and immediately rectified it as seen from the affidavit. The charges may not fall under one or more of the Conduct Rules. As the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 30th April, 1997 the respondents have no jurisdiction to proceed even with respect to the charge memo dated 30.12.1996. 45. In the light of the above discussions, (i) on Point A, this court holds that the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.1999 is liable to be quashed; (ii) On Point B, this court holds that the respondents cannot proceed further with respect to the charge memo dated 30.12.1996 after 3.4.1997 when there being no extension of service and refusing to permit the petitioner to retire; (iii) On Point C, this court holds that the respondents have no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner on and after 30.4.1997; (iv)On point D, this court holds that the procedure adopted by the domestic enquiry officer is illegal; (v) On Point E, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of mandamus as prayed for by directing the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits, gratuity, pension, commutation of pension encashment of leave salary and other concomitant benefits as if he has retired with effect from 30.4.1997. 46. In the circumstances, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the petitioner's terminal benefits, disburse the pension and all other benefits within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order or production of a copy of order. The parties shall bear their respective costs.