Judgment :- (Writ Appeal against the order of this Court dated 20.9.2006 made in W.P.No.34363 of 2006.) S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellant, a pharmacist under the Respondent-State, dispensed medicine to a child on 19.10.1992 and the child, after consuming the syrup, developed giddiness and died on 21.10.1992. A suit was filed by the parents of the deceased child, which was decreed on 25th of April, 2001 by the Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, awarding a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., to be paid by the State. The said judgment was affirmed by the Principal District Court, Erode, dismissing the appeal on 19th of April, 2004. The appellate Court observed that the manner in which the child was treated would go to show the negligence on the part of the pharmacist (appellant herein) in giving a wrong medicine, that too, a poisonous phenolic compound to the illiterate mother, who, in turn, administered the same to her child, which resulted in the death of that child. After the judgment of the appellate Court, a show cause notice has been issued on the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., to which, the appellant has already submitted a reply. 2. A departmental proceeding under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, has also been initiated on 28th of August, 2006. The said proceedings have been challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition and a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 20.9.2006. In the meantime, the appellant has retired on 30th September, 2006 and the departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 17(b) of the above said Rules, now deemed to be a proceeding under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1979. Under rule 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1979, a departmental proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1), if initiated while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner, as if the Government servant had continued in service. 3. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. We do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2006 is also dismissed.