Judgment :- This order shall govern these two writ petitions namely WP Nos.5008/2005 and 30976/2006. 2. WP No.5008/2005 has been brought forth seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent in R.C.No.19091/A1/2004 dated 2. 2005, while WP No.30976/2006 has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent in Proc.no.2268.A-1/2005 dated 22. 2005 and the consequential order dated 20.8.2005. 3. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into the affidavits filed in support of the petitions and also the counter affidavit. 4. WP No.5008/2005 challenges an order of the respondent rejecting the resignation letter of the petitioner while WP No.30976/2006 challenges an order of termination served upon him by the respondent pending the first proceedings. .5. The case of the petitioner in short is that he joined as Assistant Engineer in Construction Wing of the respondent Corporation; that he served at different places; that on promotion, he was serving as Executive Engineer during the relevant time; that he was not served with any charge memo or found fault with at any point of time in the past service of 18 years; that due to the family circumstances, he gave a resignation letter on 11. 2004; that for a period of three months, there was no reply; that thereafter, he stopped attending work from 2. 2005; that again he sent a representation on 2. 2005 stating that there was no orders passed; but, to his surprise, he received the impugned order of rejection of his resignation letter, on 12. 2005; and that while he challenged the said order, an order of suspension which is the subject matter in WP No.30976/2006, was served upon him on 22. 2005. .6. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner who joined service before 18 years as the Assistant Engineer, was promoted; that he was actually serving as Executive Engineer in the year 2001; that he rendered service for a period of 18 years without any blemish or dot or even any charge memo; that while the matter stood thus, due to the family circumstances, mentioning the reason also, he tendered his resignation letter on 11. 2004; that in the instant case, as far as the employee under the Tamil Nadu Industries Development Corporation is concerned, as per Rule 3.10(1), an employee of the Corporation shall not leave or discontinue his services in the Corporation on his own accord without first giving 30 days notice or salary in lieu thereof; that there was no prohibition for rejecting his resignation since the reasons are mentioned; that he has issued a notice also; that he waited for about 3 months; that there was no order; that he did not claim salary during the relevant period; that while the matter stood thus, he stopped from going to the Office from 2. 2005 and also sent a reminder by way of representation on 2. 2005; that under the circumstances, there should not be any impediment for applying the Rule 3.10(1) and accepting the resignation; that it is a matter of shock and surprise to note that when the matter was questioned before this Court by way of a writ petition, the management served upon him a suspension order on 22. 2005 wherein it has been stated that an enquiry is contemplated in respect of the grave charges; but, nothing is mentioned therein; that nowhere it is stated about the unauthorized absence and hence, suspension order was given; that according to them, an enquiry for grave charges was contemplated; that it is pertinent to point out that till the suspension order was served upon him, there was not even one memo in the 18 years of service; that all would go to show that after the filing of the writ petition challenging the order of rejection of the resignation letter, the old Adam began to act; that being the management, they have now given such a suspension order; that following the same, nothing had happened for the past nearly 2 + years; that under the circumstances, the suspension order has got to be quashed; that further, there is no impediment for accepting the resignation and hence, it has got to be accepted, and both the writ petitions be ordered. 7. In answer to the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that it is true that there was a letter written by the petitioner stating that it was his resignation; that the letter, according to the petitioner, was addressed on 11. 7. In answer to the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that it is true that there was a letter written by the petitioner stating that it was his resignation; that the letter, according to the petitioner, was addressed on 11. 2004; that there was also a reminder, according to him, on 2. 2005; that as far as the first letter was concerned, it was simply stated that he was resigning; that it was not made clear that whether it was resignation and whether it was one with 30 days notice or it was for voluntary retirement; that when such a doubt was entertained by the management, he gave the second letter on 2. 2005 wherein it was made clear that it was one for voluntary retirement; that in the letter dated 2. 2005, he has clearly stated that he should be relieved at the earliest possible since three months have already been completed as per General Rule 41(A) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service, and therefore, his resignation which was originally tendered on 11. 2004, was to be accepted; that a reading of the letter would make it clear that it was only a voluntary retirement, which was sought for by him; that also Rule 3.11(3) would clearly indicate that an employee who has attained the age of 50 years, or who has completed 25 years of service, can voluntarily retire by giving the Corporation 3 months notice or paying 3 months salary in lieu thereof; that if that Rule is applied, the petitioner is not a person who has either attained the age of 50 years or completed 25 years of service; that under the circumstances, it would be only by way of resignation; but, he has mentioned in the course of the letter as if it was made for voluntary retirement; and that in such a situation, the management was unable to understand under what category he has applied for. .8. .8. Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, it is true that when he challenged before this Court, a charge memo was issued to him; that it is pertinent to point out that the Administration Wing of the Corporation has brought to the notice of the management that there was heavy loss in a particular project; that there was a direction by the management to the petitioner to submit certain files on 11. 2004; but, those files were not actually placed; that instead, he tendered his resignation letter on 11. 2004; that it is explained in the suspension order that he had a role in the misuse and misappropriation of the funds in MAHIA Project; that while he has not also placed the files, there arose an occasion to suspend him and also not to accept his resignation, and hence, both the writ petitions have got to be dismissed. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that originally, there was a communication addressed by the respondent Corporation, on 12. 2004; that there was a reply given by the petitioner, on 22. 2005 stating that it did not speak about the particular file, but in general terms; that he could not understand what those files are; that thereupon, another communication was sent by the Corporation on 23. 2005; that following the same, the suspension order was served on him; but, nothing had happened for the past 2 + years; that the explanation tendered by him, was accepted and the matter has been dropped; and that under the circumstances, there cannot be any impediment for quashing the order of suspension and accepting the resignation as warranted by law. 10. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. .11. It is not in controversy that the petitioner who was originally serving during the relevant period as Executive Engineer, tendered his resignation letter to the Corporation on 11. 2004. A reading of the letter would clearly reveal that it was only a resignation. The said letter was not accepted by the Corporation till 2. 2005, and from 2. 2005, he was not attending work. Thereafter, he sent a representation on 2. 2005, wherein he has stated that the period of 3 months is over, and even as per Rule 41(A) of the Service Rules, the period is over. The said letter was not accepted by the Corporation till 2. 2005, and from 2. 2005, he was not attending work. Thereafter, he sent a representation on 2. 2005, wherein he has stated that the period of 3 months is over, and even as per Rule 41(A) of the Service Rules, the period is over. Now, at this juncture, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in short, is that it was a resignation by an employee under Rule 3.10(1) of the Corporation Rules. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the Corporation was unable to know whether it was a resignation or it was a voluntary retirement since the first letter would read as resignation and the second letter would quote Rule 41(A) as if there was lapse of 3 months time from the date of the letter. Now, at this juncture, this question has got to be decided in favour of the petitioner. The letter clearly reads that it was only a resignation. The second letter speaks about a period. In such circumstances, the case of voluntary retirement would not arise. As per the Rules, voluntary retirement is possible if a person has completed 50 years of age or 25 years of service. In the instant case, the petitioner has neither attained 50 years of age nor completed 25 years of service. Under the circumstances, no question of voluntary retirement would arise. Hence, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation that it was highly doubtful whether it was only voluntary retirement or resignation cannot be countenanced. 12. Apart from the above, in the instant case, there was misquoting of Rule 41(A) of the said Rule. If at all to be applied, only Rule 3.10(1) could be applied to the case of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the resignation letter was kept pending in the hands of the management for a period of more than three months. When the resignation letter was given on 11. 2004, the first communication from the management emanated on 12. 2004 calling upon certain files which were available with him, and therefore, they must be brought. Then, there arose a reply given by him. Thereafter, another communication was addressed by the Corporation on 23. 2005. When the resignation letter was given on 11. 2004, the first communication from the management emanated on 12. 2004 calling upon certain files which were available with him, and therefore, they must be brought. Then, there arose a reply given by him. Thereafter, another communication was addressed by the Corporation on 23. 2005. It is pertinent to point out that the occasion for sending the earliest communication as if the files were with him and calling upon him to produce all those files, has arisen only after 2. 2005 when he stopped attending the office. Thus, it would be quite clear that from the time when he gave his resignation letter on 11. 2004 till 2. 2005, there was no communication addressed, and if really the files were available or there were certain allegations of mismanagement or misappropriation or any involvement is noticed, they would have addressed so. 13. Added further that in the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent Corporation that there was no letter of resignation given by him, on 11. 2004. Why it was kept pending for a period of three months remained unknown, and there was no explanation by the management. That apart, when the first writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the order of rejection of resignation letter, he was suspended from service. A reading of the suspension order would also reveal that it was not for unauthorized absence, and nowhere, it is found so. But, on the contrary, it would say that in view of the contemplated enquiry on the grave charges, he was to be kept under suspension. This suspension order, in the opinion of this Court, has got to be quashed for more reasons than one. Once he gave a letter of resignation, it was kept pending for a period of three months without any reason, and thereafter, a communication was addressed as if he had not proceeded with certain files and thereafter, the suspension order has also been passed after the initiation of the proceedings in this Court. This Court is of the opinion that all was not well at that time when the suspension order was passed. Further, the suspension order though was in contemplation of enquiry on grave charge, it was served upon him on 22. 2005, and for a period of more than 2 + years, nothing had happened. This Court is of the opinion that all was not well at that time when the suspension order was passed. Further, the suspension order though was in contemplation of enquiry on grave charge, it was served upon him on 22. 2005, and for a period of more than 2 + years, nothing had happened. All would be indicative of the fact that the suspension order itself was only to stop him from going out of the post by way of resignation. Once it was pending for a period of more than 2 + yeas, what are all the files that are required by them, and what were the allegations made against him, remained unknown. But, on the contrary it is averred in the counter that there was misappropriation of funds in a particular project and so many persons were involved, and in that, the petitioner is also involved, which is so bald and vague. Once the suspension order was passed before 2 + years, nothing has happened all these period, which would clearly indicate that the suspension order was only an outcome of malafide and also to stop him from going out of the post by way of resignation. Therefore, the suspension order has got to be quashed. There cannot be any impediment for directing the management to receive his resignation and pass suitable orders relieving him from the post. Accordingly, the suspension order is quashed, and a direction is issued. 14. In the result, both the writ petitions are ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.