Judgment : The petitioner has challenged the order of the second respondent, dated 210. 2003 and sought for a direction to the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, monetary as well as service, with appropriate interest till the date of payment and for damages. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk/Junior Assistant by direct recruitment and he joined the service on 7. 1955. He was promoted as Assistant and transferred to Coimbatore Municipality (now Corporation), where, he had worked as Store Keeper between the second week of December 1974 and the third week of June 1975. Since his predecessor had failed to handover the Water Supply Materials and Accounts, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Civil Engineer and the then Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality. By memo, dated 21. 1975, of the then Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality, the former general storekeeper was directed to handover the charge of the stores to the petitioner. Even then, he had failed to do so. On his transfer to Erode Municipality, the Municipal Commissioner instructed the petitioner to handover the materials available in the stores through his successor. Accordingly, the petitioner handed over all the materials available in the stores and got relieved. The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality in his memo, dated 20.12.1976 framed charges against the petitioner, alleging that he had failed to handover the complete charge of the stores and for other irregularities, for which, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 14. 1977. .3. According to the petitioner, no orders were passed by the Municipal Commissioner on the said explanation. There were about 437 items mentioned in the Charge memo, dated 20.12.1976, in which, S1.322 was omitted. Out of which, he had handed-over 87 items of articles, with reference to stock entry In the ledgers and 244 items of materials, which were not even entered in the stock register. He had also handedover 56 items of materials in excess of the actual stock entries found in the Stock Registers. There was shortage of 49 items of materials, due to the failure of his predecessors to make proper entries, while the materials were issued for execution of various works in connection with water supply. The details of the shortage of materials are as follows: .4. There was shortage of 49 items of materials, due to the failure of his predecessors to make proper entries, while the materials were issued for execution of various works in connection with water supply. The details of the shortage of materials are as follows: .4. The petitioner has further submitted that in the second list furnished to him by the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality, 39 items were shown as "materials further to stock." According to the petitioner, no records were maintained in the Office of the said Municipality to show, how they were secured. From Coimbatore Municipality, he was transferred to various places and on 14. 1986, he was promoted as Manager and posted at Edapady Municipality. Subsequently, on 21. 1991 he was promoted as Assistant Revenue Officer and posted at Salem Municipality. The petitioner has further submitted that the order of recovery, dated 210. 1993, regarding shortage of materials, is passed without conducting any enquiry after a lapse of 17 years from the date of issue of the charge memo, i.e., 20.12,1976, when the petitioner was serving in Coimbatore Municipality (now Corporation). Thereafter, he was allowed to retire from the afternoon of 310. 1993 by the proceedings of the Regional Executive Engineer and the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem, the second respondent, dated 29.10,1993, subject to the following conditions, (i) a sum of Rs.20,42,908.28 would be deducted from his retrial benefits and (2) without prejudice to the disciplinary action being taken against the petitioner. 5. By memo, dated 20.10.1993 of the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality, the petitioner was made liable to pay Rs.19,49,699.83 for the loss alleged to have been caused to Coimbatore Municipality during his tenure. Reference is also made to the charges said to have been framed against the petitioner in the proceedings, dated 20.12.1976. It is further stated in the memo that the petitioner is responsible for a sum of Rs.19,49,699.83 as detailed below: .(i) Present value of materials as covered in the charge : Rs.18,53,636.43 .(ii) Amount to be recovered as per Para No.292 and 307/74,75 of Audit objection: Rs.96,036.40 (iii) Pending advance : Rs.27.00 Total Rs.19,49,699. 83 .6. It is further stated in the memo that the petitioner is responsible for a sum of Rs.19,49,699.83 as detailed below: .(i) Present value of materials as covered in the charge : Rs.18,53,636.43 .(ii) Amount to be recovered as per Para No.292 and 307/74,75 of Audit objection: Rs.96,036.40 (iii) Pending advance : Rs.27.00 Total Rs.19,49,699. 83 .6. It is the contention of the petitioner that without conducting an enquiry into the charges framed in the year 1976, the petitioner cannot be penalised, the petitioner has further submitted that when he was issued with a charge memo on 20.12.1976 by the Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality to wit, "Thiru. P.S. Kasthuri, Assistant, Salem Municipality and former General Store Keeper of Coimbatore Municipality failed to hand over the Water supply materials property to his successor (Thiru. Sadasivam), at the time of his transfer and that here were other irregularities in the maintenance of accounts as per the list enclosed.", the petitioner has submitted his explanation, dated 22. 1977 that the charge of the materials was not handedover to him by Thiru. Masilamani, his predecessor. Further, Thiru. C.M. Arumugam, predecessor of Thiru. Masilamani, had also failed to handover the charge of materials to the latter. On receipt of the explanation, the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality in his letter, dated 3. 1978, called for further explanation from the petitioner, in respect of audit objections contained in Para No.184(a) of the Audit Report 1975-76, for which, the petitioner in his explanation, dated. 6. 1978, had stated that his predecessors have not handedover any of the pumpsets noted in the audit report and therefore, he should not be made liable. After the issuance of the charge memo in 1976 and after the receipt of the explanation, for nearly 17 years, there was no action on the proceedings and therefore, the petitioner bona fidely believed that his explanations were accepted an6 that the charges were also dropped. However, there was no formal communication to that effect. 7. After the issuance of the charge memo in 1976 and after the receipt of the explanation, for nearly 17 years, there was no action on the proceedings and therefore, the petitioner bona fidely believed that his explanations were accepted an6 that the charges were also dropped. However, there was no formal communication to that effect. 7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that only because of the enquiry made by the Regional Executive Engineer and Regional Director of Municipal Administration, second respondent — herein, all of a sudden, the Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality, ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,49,699.83 towards the cost of materials at the market rate, as on the date of attaining superannuation, after a lapse of 17 years from the date of chargememo. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the audit objections at Paragraphs 292-302/75-76 of the report and therefore, there is a violation of principle of Natural Justice. 8. In the order of retirement, a sum of Rs.27/- is shown as pending adjustment. According to the petitioner, amount is balance of advance amount drawn in Ur.1135/5-75 and that he had already refunded the said amount in Coimbatore Municipality Treasury in Challan No. 6190. The respondents have failed to consider and verify the same and therefore, there is a total lack of application of mind. .9. In so far as the alleged loss caused to the Government in not recovering the arrears of property tax, profession tax, etc., to the tune of Rs.51,566.45, the petitioner has submitted that though he was posted as Assistant to serve in the Office of the Commissioner of Edapady Municipality, he was directed to work as Revenue Inspector from 10. 1984 to 111. 1986 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Manager (Incharge) from 14. 1986 onwards. According to the petitioner, as per G.O. Ms. No. 273, M.A., & W.S Department, dated 5. 1989, responsibility to collect tax arrears lies only with the Commissioner and not with the Manager. Inspite of the government order, the Commissioner, Edapadi Municipality, issued a memo in his proceedings, dated 15. 1993, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the time barred arrears of property tax and vacant site tax, relating to the year 1989-90 should not be recovered from him. Though the petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 16. Inspite of the government order, the Commissioner, Edapadi Municipality, issued a memo in his proceedings, dated 15. 1993, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the time barred arrears of property tax and vacant site tax, relating to the year 1989-90 should not be recovered from him. Though the petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 16. 1993, contending inter alia that he was not liable to pay the amount, no orders were passed till date of filing of the Original Application and therefore, the petitioner has submitted that no penal action can be taken against the petitioner, belatedly. 10. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 21. 1991 and that he had retired from service on 310. 1993. Recovery of a sum of Rs.51,566.45 ordered by the Commissioner of Edapady Municipality without conducting any inquiry, after a long lapse of time is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 11. Likewise, when the petitioner was serving in Salem, the Commissioner of Salem Municipality had informed the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem for recovery of Rs. 41,642/- towards Property Tax arrears for the period from 1987-88 and 1988-89. It is the case of the petitioner that he had Joined Salem Municipality on 21. 1991. Tax for the second half year 1987-88 had become time barred by limitation as on 30.10.1990 itself, even before he took charge in Salem Municipality. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for not recovering the time barred debts is baseless and arbitrary. 12. Placing reliance on the order of this Court W.P.Nos. 3364 to 3369 of 1976 and G.O. Ms.No. 1601, dated 19. 1981, the petitioner has submitted that he cannot be made responsible for recovery of time barred, debts. In these circumstances, the petitioner has contended that for the alleged failure (1) to hand-over the water supply materials (2) non-maintenance of certain accounts, (3) for collection of time barred debts, no proceedings can be initiated against him for recovery, after his retirement, in the absence of any provisions in the service rules. .13. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, first respondent in his counter affidavit has raised a preliminary objection that writ petition against Corporation is not maintainable, as the employees are not government servants. .13. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, first respondent in his counter affidavit has raised a preliminary objection that writ petition against Corporation is not maintainable, as the employees are not government servants. He further submitted that while the petitioner was serving as Store Keeper in the erstwhile Coimbatore Municipality from November 1974 to March 1976, he was incharge of Water supplies stores. At the time of transfer from Coimbatore Municipality, the petitioner had failed to hand over the materials properly to his successor and there were several irregularities found in the maintenance of accounts. Therefore, by memo, dated 16. 1976, the petitioner was directed to rectify the defects in the accounts and make good the loss sustained by the Municipality. Even though the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the said memo on 17. 1976, he had not taken any action to rectify the defects in the accounts and therefore, a charge was framed against him on 20.12.1976 to with, "that Thiru. P.S. Kasturi, Assistant, Salem Municipality and former General Store Keeper, Coimbatore Municipality failed to hand over the water supply materials properly to his successors at the time of his transfer and that there are several irregularities in the maintenance of the account as per the list enclosed." 14. The first respondent has further submitted that though the list of missing arti-cles/shortages was forwarded to the petitioner, he had not taken any action to handover those articles to his successors. On receipt of the ex-planation from the petitioner, the audit has pointed out the irregularities committed by him, while he was working as General Storekeeper. The first respondent has further submitted that the Corporation has informed the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem, that a sum of Rs.19,49,699.83 has to be recovered from the petitioner towards shortages and that the charges framed against him on 20.12.1976 was also pending. Therefore, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem was requested to recover the said amount from the petitioner at the time of his retirement. The petitioner was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. .15. The first respondent has denied the contention of the petitioner that he cannot be penalised for the shortages pointed out in the year 1976. The petitioner was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. .15. The first respondent has denied the contention of the petitioner that he cannot be penalised for the shortages pointed out in the year 1976. He has further submitted that having failed to remit the amount equivalent to the value of shortage of materials, the petitioner is not entitled to blame the department on the grounds of delay. The first respondent has also denied the contention of the petitioner that he was not given full charge of the stores and further submitted that even by memo, dated 21. 1975, the petitioners former general storekeeper had already been directed to hand-over the entire charge of the stores to the petitioner. The first respondent has further submitted that after the transfer of the petitioner from Coimbatore Municipality and, when he was called upon to account for shortages, the petitioner alleged that his predecessor did not handover the charge, pertaining to Water Supply and Drainage Materials. It is further submitted that no such representation was made by the petitioner, when he was working in Coimbatore Municipality and therefore, the contention of the petitioner is only an after thought to get over the claim made by the department towards shortages. 16. The first respondent has further submitted that during inspection by a Municipal Engineer, viz., Thiru. K.N. Krishnan, petitioner had expressed his difficulties in reconciliation of the stock verification report. According to the petitioner, Thiru. Arumugam was working as Storekeeper in Coimbatore Municipality. He was replaced by Thiru. Masilamani. The petitioner was appointed as Storekeeper, in the place of Thiru. Masilamani, pursuant to the transfer of the former. The contention of the petitioner that even Thiru. Arumugam had failed to handover the charge of Water Supply and Drainage materials to his successor, Thiru. Masiiamani, who happened to be the petitioners predecessor, is denied. The first respondent has further denied the contention of the petitioner that since there was no proper handing over of the charge of the materials, he was unable to take effective steps in stock settlement of stock verification report. Inasmuch as the petitioner was a storekeeper at the relevant time, he should have accounted for the materials in his custody and blaming his predecessors is without any basis. Inasmuch as the petitioner was a storekeeper at the relevant time, he should have accounted for the materials in his custody and blaming his predecessors is without any basis. The first respondent has further submitted that if the materials were not properly handedover to him, when he was appointed as General Storekeeper in Coimbatore Municipality, he should have brought this to the notice of higher authorities. In the absence of any such representation in this regard, it is not open to the petitioner to complain that his predecessor did not hand over the articles to him. The contention of the petitioner that his explanation was accepted and consequently, charges were dropped, is denied. The first respondent has denied the allegation that the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.27/- in Challan No. 6190, dated 17. 1975 and put the petitioner to strict proof. In these circumstances, the third respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, second respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 1. 1993 have, delegated the powers to the Regional Directors of Municipal Administration, by which, persons appointed by the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras can be ordered to be retired by the Regional Directors themselves. Considering that the petitioner was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 310. 1993, the Municipal Commissioner, Salem in his fetter dated 19. 1993, furnished the service particulars of the petitioner, which are as follows: .18. The second respondent has further submitted that the above Municipal Commissioners were addressed to furnish No Due Certificates, so as to enable the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, to issue retirement orders to the petitioner. Except, Municipal Commissioners of Coimbatore, Salem and Edapaddy, other Municipalities have sent ‘NIL’ reports in this regard. The Municipal Commissioners, Coimbatore Municipality (now Corporation), Edapaddy Municipality and Salem Municipality (now Corporation) have sent their reports, stating that the petitioner has caused revenue loss, as detailed hereunder: 19. It is further submitted that the Municipal Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality (now Corporation) has also stated that disciplinary action taken against the petitioner in his Office File No. 106435/76-G1, was pending. Before issuing the retirement order to the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras. It is further submitted that the Municipal Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality (now Corporation) has also stated that disciplinary action taken against the petitioner in his Office File No. 106435/76-G1, was pending. Before issuing the retirement order to the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras. In response, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem was informed that the petitioner might be permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, without prejudice to the disciplinary action taken against him and the amounts due to the said municipalities be recovered from his retirement benefits. The second respondent has further submitted that it is only because of the querry made by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem, order of recovery was passed. .20. The Commissioner of Edapady Municipality, fifth respondent, has filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner worked as Manager of Edapady Municipality from 14. 1986 to 21. 1991 and he ought to have recovered property tax, vacant site tax and profession tax, for the above said period. Though the petitioner was aware of the circular issued by the department to that effect, he had intentionally requested the Commissioner to send the Circular and Government Orders, on which, recovery was proposed to be made from the petitioner. The fifth respondent has denied the contention of the petitioner that charges were not framed under Rule 8(1) ofthe Municipal Services Discipline and Appeal Rules and on the contrary, submitted that orders were already passed, for recovery of Rs. 1,439/- towards time barred arrears of professional tax for the years 1985-86, 86-87, 87-88, and 88-89. According to him, Manager of the Municipality is expected to receive the diaries of the Revenue Inspectors and Bill Collectors and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the persons, who had failed to collect the tax within the financial year and since the petitioner had failed to initiate action against them, tax could not be collected in time, for which, he alone is responsible. 21. Denying the contention of the petitioner that recovery proceedings to the tune of Rs. 51,566.45 was not sent to him, the fifth respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was served a memo directing him to remit the said amount. 21. Denying the contention of the petitioner that recovery proceedings to the tune of Rs. 51,566.45 was not sent to him, the fifth respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was served a memo directing him to remit the said amount. According to the respondent, since it is a continuous process, there is no time limit for recovering the said amount from the petitioner and therefore, by letter, dated 15. 1993, he was directed to explain as to why the time barred arrears should not be recovered from his pay. In these circumstances, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount to Edapadi Municipality. .22. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the government servant is permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, no fresh disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him after retirement. Even if any disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against the government servant, before attaining the age of superannuation, unless the government servant is retained in service, pursuant to an order issued by the Government under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules, the said disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued for the purpose of inflicting of any one of the penalties enumerated Under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, such as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or recovery etc, It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of completion of disciplinary proceedings, relationship of Master and servant should be maintained and that a specific order of suspension should be passed by the Government in this regard. 23. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioner was permitted to retire from service, the relationship of Master and Servant is terminated and therefore, no disciplinary action can be taken against or continued, in the absence of provisions in the service rules. Apart from FR 56(1)(c), he placed strong reliance on many decisions, which would be dealt with, in latter paragraphs. .24. During the course of the hearing, a fax message of Director of Local Fund Audit, Madras was produced before this Court and paragraph 5 of the said message reads as follows: ."However, the Commissioner now in letter 1, No. RX.3078/2007A1 dated 28. .24. During the course of the hearing, a fax message of Director of Local Fund Audit, Madras was produced before this Court and paragraph 5 of the said message reads as follows: ."However, the Commissioner now in letter 1, No. RX.3078/2007A1 dated 28. 2007 has stated that there is no time barred arrears and tax to be recovered from Thiru. P.S. Kasthuri during the period from 1984-1985 to 1990-1991. Where he worked as Revenue Inspector and Manager in Edappadl Municipality. Copy of the letter is sent here with. It is clear from the above letter that as on date no amount is pending to be recovered from the individual Thiru. P.S. Kasthuri while he worked in this Municipality during the period from 10. 1984 to 33. 1987." 25. Placing reliance on the above fax message, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is now made dear that no amount towards time barred arrears is due to be recovered from the petitioner for the period between 10. 1984 to 33. 1987, when he had worked as Revenue Inspector and Manager respectively in Edapaddy Municipality. Therefore, he submitted that even assuming that there was loss caused to the Municipality on account of non-recovery of Property Tax and Professional Tax for the period between 1984-85 and 1989-90, to the tune of Rs.5.1,566.45, no disciplinary action can be taken against him, .26. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when Rule 56(1)(c) permits a particular mode for taking action against a government servant, after his retirement, the authorities can resort to only that mode and not otherwise. According to him, if the department had decided to initiate departmental action against a Government servant, then he has to be retained in service, by placing him under suspension, thereby, the relationship of Master and Servant, is retained till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. In the case on hand, as the petitioner was neither suspended nor retained in service, orders of recovery passed against him, without conducting any enquiry, as contemplated under the service rules, is liable to be set aside. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, 14 years ago and he is now aged about 73 years. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, 14 years ago and he is now aged about 73 years. In the absence of any explanation from the respondent as to why disciplinary action was not initiated for the past 14 years, the recovery order is illegal. Inviting the attention of this Court to the specific words used in the impugned order, i.e., "without prejudice to the disciplinary action being taken against the individual", learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was permit tee to retire, no departmental proceedings can be initiated thereafter. 28. According to him, one of the allegations relate to the year 1974-75, i.e., failure to handover Water Supply and Drainage Materials and maintenance of accounts. After a lapse of nearly two decades, evidence and records would have been either lost or misplaced and that no witnesses would be available to support the said allegations. The inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the department in not conducting the enquiry into the allegations of the year 1974-75, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner from effectively defending the same. He further submitted that in such matters Courts have consistently held that, as inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings would cause serious prejudice to an employee, fresh action should not be permitted to be taken. He further submitted that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the delay and latches on the part of the department should not be condoned and it would be unfair to allow the department to initiate fresh or continue any action, at this length of time after retirement and therefore, submitted that the impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside. .29. As regards the allegation that the petitioner had not taken adequate steps to collect the rents due to be paid to Municipality, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and even before the disposal of the case, he had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. Under such circumstances, fastening the liability on the petitioner, for non-recovery of rent is arbitrary. Under such circumstances, fastening the liability on the petitioner, for non-recovery of rent is arbitrary. In the light of the decisions of this Court, holding that revenue Inspectors/Managers cannot be made liable for the failure to collect tax, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fresh proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner for recovery and any proceedings initiated already are not valid in law. 30. Further, placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (1988) 1 MLJ 247 : 1988 Writ L.R. 38 and Mani, N. v. Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality 2006 (1) CTC 632 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liability cannot be fixed on the petitioner for recovery of time barrel property tax, professional tax, and rent, due and payable to the Municipality. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the averments made, in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. No reasons were adduced by them for not conducting an enquiry into the allegations level led in the year 1976, excepting to state due pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal, action was not taken. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. .32. The impugned order reads that the petitioner was permitted to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action being taken against him and subject to recovery of Rs. 20,42,6028. The said sum is split up into three different items, viz., 33. In order to examine the moot point raised by the petitioner, it is relevant to extract Rule 56(1) of the Fundamental Rules applicable to a government servant/municipal employees, who in the normal course, would retire on the Afternoon of the last day of the Month, in which, he attains the age of 58 years. 34. In order to examine the moot point raised by the petitioner, it is relevant to extract Rule 56(1) of the Fundamental Rules applicable to a government servant/municipal employees, who in the normal course, would retire on the Afternoon of the last day of the Month, in which, he attains the age of 58 years. 34. Rule 56(1) of the Fundamental Rules deals with retirement on superannuation and it reads as follows: "(a) Every Government servant in the superior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month In which he attains the age of fifty-eight years, He shall not be retained in service after that age except, with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing but he shall not be retained the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances: Provided that this clause shall not apply to Government servants who are tested as in superior service for the purpose of these rules but as in the Tamil Nadu Baste Service for the purpose of pension. Such Government servants as well as all basic Servants shall retire on attaining the age of sixty years: Provided further that on and from the 1. 1993, a District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Subordinate Judge or District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, who, in the opinion of the High Court, Madras, has potential for continued useful service beyond the age of fifty-eight years, shall retire from service on attaining the age of sixty years: .(b) Omitted. 1993, a District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Subordinate Judge or District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, who, in the opinion of the High Court, Madras, has potential for continued useful service beyond the age of fifty-eight years, shall retire from service on attaining the age of sixty years: .(b) Omitted. .(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a), a Government servant who is under suspension, .(i) on a charge of misconduct; or .(ii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct, is pending; or (iii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending; or (iv) against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial, shall not be permitted by the appointing authority to retire on his reaching the date of retirement, but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge of misconduct or criminal misconduct or the enquiry into the allegations of criminal misconduct or the enquiry into contemplated charges or disciplinary proceeding taken under Rule 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or Rule 3(c) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as the case may be, in respect of item (iv) above is concluded and a final order passed thereon by the competent authority or by any higher authority." .35. The Supreme Court and this Court have considered the issue relating to the authority and power of the government or Head of the department from initiating or continuing the departmental action, if already taken, against the government servant, after retirement in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. AIR 1999 SC 1841 : (1999) 3 SCC 666 : 1999-I-LLJ-1236, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 7, held as follows at p. 123 8 of LLJ: ."7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the above said regulations, it must be held; that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retirel 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 the case of misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in the case of 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." .36. In State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Karupiah 2005 (3) CTC 4 this Court, at paragraph 29, held as follows: ."29. From the above note it is also clear that to proceed against a Government servant, who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct, after his retirement, the fulfilling of the requirements under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules is a mandatory one, otherwise, the competent authority cannot have any jurisdiction on the retired Government servant to proceed against him and the noncompliance of the said Rule has vitiated all the proceedings initiated against the first respondent and therefore, the same are not sustainable under law and are liable to be set aside." 37. Similar view was also taken by this Court in P. Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. (2006) 4 MLJ 504 , to which, I am a party, where the Division Bench held that permission to retire an employee without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings is not authorised under any rule and hence, such permission is, illegal and without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi laid down in the above case is as follows: "In the absence of specific enabling provision in TANCEM Service Rules the order reserving the right to continue disciplinary proceedings after superannuation is illegal and without jurisdiction." .38. Following the above decisions, another Division Bench of this Court in N. Kunnai Gowder v. Coimbatore District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, 2007 (5) CTC 491 , at Paragraph 6, held as follows: ."6. A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer, the employee cannot be made to retire. A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer, the employee cannot be made to retire. In the instant case, no rule has been brought to our notice providing for continuation of such proceeding despite permitting the employee concerned to retire. There has to be a specific provision of law or regulation or a byelaw governing the service conditions of the person in question for continuing a departmental enquiry, initiated before the date of superannuation, even after the employee had retired from service. Without such a provision being available, there cannot be an employer-employee relationship surviving after the employee retires from service. Therefore, continuing the enquiry proceedings or conducting an action against the person after his retirement from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law." 39. Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules prescribe a mandatory procedure to be followed, when the department decides to initiate or continue disciplinary action against a Government servant, after his retirement. Rule 56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules states that every Government servant in the superior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month, in which he attains the age of 58 years and he should not be retained in service after that age except with the sanction of the Government on Public grounds which must be recorded in writing but he should not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. 40. 40. Rule 56(1)(c) is an exception to the Rule 56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules and it states that if a government servant is under suspension on a charge of misconduct or against whom an enquiry into grave charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of Criminal misconduct is pending or against whom an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending or against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial, shall not be permitted by the appointing authority to retire on his reaching the date of retirement but shall be retained in service until the enquiry of the above mentioned nature is concluded and a final order is passed therein, Thus it could be seen that Rule 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(c) mandate that a Government servant has to be retained in service, if grave charges and in the absence of retention of the government servant, no fresh departmental proceedings can be initiated against him after retirement. Reading of the Fundamental Rules, makes it clear that when a Government servant reaches the age of superannuation, the service rules applicable to him should enable or authorise the competent authority to retain him in service for the completion of the enquiry. A government servant is on a contract of employment subject to the service conditions of Master and servant relationship and the said relationship ceases to have effect on the retirement of the government servant, except for payment of pension and other retrial benefits. Therefore, unless there is an express order issued by the competent authority under FR 56(1)(c), retaining him in service, the respondent or any other authority cannot take shelter, quoting in the retirement order that he is permitted to retire, without prejudice to the departmental action, being taken against him. .41. Neither Tamil Nadu Municipal Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner nor Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, authorise the respondents to continue disciplinary proceedings or permit them to initiate fresh action after retirement, without placing the employee of the municipality or the government servant, as the case may be, under suspension before attaining the age of superannuation. When Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules, contemplates a condition of placing a Government servant under suspension, for the purpose of conducting an enquiry into the charges of misconduct or enquiry in to grave charges under contemplation and for other criminal misconduct, the said procedure ought to have been followed by the respondents, by retaining fie petitioner in service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into she alleged charges. Retention of a government servant in service is a sine quo non for initiating conducting disciplinary proceedings, after retirement. 42. As regards the next contention that Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules contemplates a particular mode for taking action against the Government servant after his retirement and that the same ought to have been done only under that mode and not otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions in (1) State of Jharkand v. Ambay Cements 2005 (1) CTC 223 and (2) T. Ramamoorthy v. Secretary Sri Ramakrishna Vidhyalaya High School etc., and Others 1998 Writ LR. 641. Let me now consider the above decisions relied on by the petitioner and few other decisions of the Supreme Court. .43. In T. Ramamoorthy v. Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya High School, etc. and Others (supra), at Paragraph 6, feild as follows: ."If the statutory provision enacted by the Legislature prescribed a particular mode for terminating the service or dismissing the teaching or a non-teaching start of a school, it can and has to be done not only in that manner alone, but it cannot be done in any manner too. This principle that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, things must be done in that way and not otherwise and that the other method of performance is necessarily precluded, is not only well settled, but squarely applies to this case also in construing the scope of the power as also its exercise by the management under Section 22 of the Act." .44. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, AIR 2005 SC 4067 : (2004) 4 SCC 268 : 2004-II-LLJ-9, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 12, held as follows: ."12. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, AIR 2005 SC 4067 : (2004) 4 SCC 268 : 2004-II-LLJ-9, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 12, held as follows: ."12. Although these observations were made in the context ofthe jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the proceedings relating to an industrial dispute and may not be read as a limitation on the Courts powers under Article 226, nevertheless it would need a very strong case indeed for the High Court to deviate from the principle that where a specific remedy is given by the statute, the person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided In that statute and in no other manner." 45. In Captain Sube Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi AIR 2004 SC 3821 : (2004) 6 SCC 440 , the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 29, held as follows: 29. In Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, a Constitution Bench of this Court reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. (See also in this connection Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka). The statute in question requires the authority to act in accordance with the rules for variation of the conditions attached to the permit. In our view, it is not permissible to the State Government to purport to alter these conditions by issuing a notification under Section 67(1)(d) read with sub-clause (1) thereof." 46. The Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements (supra), at Paragraph 27, held as follows: "27 Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of the interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation and where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. It is the cardinal rule of the interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation and where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the Instant case of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance of the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee the respondent herein." 47. In Pandit D Aher v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 437 , the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows: "When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedure laid down under the sub rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial review would lie even if there is an error of taw apparent on the face of the record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without application of mind; judicial review would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reason may attract the principles of Judicial review.” 48. Rule 56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules states that every government servant in the superior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month, in which he attains the age of 58 years. Rue 56(1)(c) of the said Rules is an exception, by which, the relationship of master and servant, as between the government and its servant, is retained even after he attains the age of superannuation, by suspending him from service and by another order of not permitting him to retire, for the purpose of conducting an enquiry, or trial before the Court of law. When exception to Rule 56(1)(a) warrants suspension under FR 56(1)(c) and another specific order of not permitting him to retire from service, the authorities are precluded from acting otherwise. When exception to Rule 56(1)(a) warrants suspension under FR 56(1)(c) and another specific order of not permitting him to retire from service, the authorities are precluded from acting otherwise. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if a statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in the same manner and not otherwise and more particularly, the result of an enquiry into grave charges is likely to deprive a government servant or an employee of the local body of his retiral benefits. Therefore, the impugned order ofthe second respondent, reserving the right to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, after permitting him to retire, without suspending him from service is contrary to FR 56(l)(c) and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 49. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subject matter of the proposed disciplinary action, as stated in the impugned order, relate to incidents, which took place more than 20 years ago. The following judgments are pressed into service for the preposition that inordinate delay, not explained satisfactorily would cause serious prejudice and therefore, there cannot be any disciplinary action, after retirement. 50. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another (1990) Supp SCC 738, the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the latches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further. 51. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishnan AIR 1998 SC 1833 : (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows: "Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations." 52. In Union of lndia v. CAT 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations." 52. In Union of lndia v. CAT 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any further….." 53. In P. V. Mahadevan v. M. D. TamilNadu Housing Board 2005 (4) CTC 403, this Court after referring to various decisions, held that, "The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interests and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put-an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 15. We therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retrial benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No cost." 54. In the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk v. N. Sivasamy 2005 (5) CTC 451 , the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "Though the alleged lapse occurred in the year 1995 and certain charges related to the period 1993-94, the charge memo was issued on 17. 1997 and served on 27. 1997, just 7 days before the date of retirement. The contention of the appellant that only with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish, the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored …… We have already pointed out that though the applicant failed Original Application No. 6284 of 1997, challenging the charge memo, dated 17. 1997, admittedly, ho stay was granted. The contention of the appellant that only with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish, the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored …… We have already pointed out that though the applicant failed Original Application No. 6284 of 1997, challenging the charge memo, dated 17. 1997, admittedly, ho stay was granted. Despite, the above fact that the department had not proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the department. According to the applicant, he is 67 years of age as on the date and had rendered 38 years of service in the department. He had undergone sufferings from mental worry, agony, anguish and hardship for all these years. We are satisfied that there is no need to pursue the charge memo, dated 17. 1997." 55. In yet another decision in R. Tirupathy and Others v. District Collector, Madurai District and Others 2006 (2) CTC 574 , this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo, dated 2.2,2005 on the ground that the charges relate to purchase of uniforms during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 and the inordinate delay on the part of the department in issuing a charge memo was not properly explained. 56. The Supreme Court in M. V. Bylani v. Union of India and Others (2006) 5 SCC 88 , quashed the order of removal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority on various grounds particularly, on the ground that initiation of disciplinary proceedings after six years and continuance thereof, for a period of seven years prejudiced the delinquent officer. 57. In M. Elangovan v. Trichy District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., 2006 (2) CTC 635 , this Court, while quashing the second show cause notice on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings, allowed the writ petitions holding that the petitioners therein were entitled to all the benefits in accordance with law. The same view has been expressed by this Court in yet another decision in Parameswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu 2006 (1) CTC 476 . 58. In order to sustain that collection of time barred arrears cannot be a subject matter of disciplinary action against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this writ in Mani, N. v. Commissioner, Villupurant Municipality (supra) and Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra). 59. 58. In order to sustain that collection of time barred arrears cannot be a subject matter of disciplinary action against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this writ in Mani, N. v. Commissioner, Villupurant Municipality (supra) and Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra). 59. In Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider as to whether action can be taken against a Bill Collector for recovery of time barred profession tax. Following the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 3911 of 1997, dated 24. 1980 and W.P. No. 3421 to 3426 of 1978, dated 2. 1981, this Court held that recovery ordered by the department against the bill collector for having allowed the profession tax to become time barred, is illegal. The judgment in A. Selvaraj and Others v. Commissioner, Tiruvarur Municipality (W.P. Nos. 3364 to 3369 of 1976, dated 211. 1976), by His Lordship Justice S. Mohan, J. (as he then was), as extracted in the above reported judgment, is reproduced here under: "Having regard to these provisions, I find it rather impossible to appreciate the stand of the Municipality as to how a Bill Collector could cause pecuniary loss to the Municipality by his failure to collect the taxes. Firstly, it does not lie within his powers to allow the recovery of taxes to become time barred. The very elaborate procedure relating to collection oftaxes mentioned in paragraph 65 of Municipal Volume I would clearly indicate that it is the duty of the Executive Office to have periodic verification of the arrears. If he had failed to do the duty and thereby the arrears of tax had become time barred for recovery, that liability cannot be passed on to the Bill Collector." 60. While setting aside the order of recovery, in Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra), this Court held as follows: "Basically there are no grounds at all to pin down the liability on the petitioner, as now being done. The proceedings taken in this behalf are the result of a misconception of the legal position. They have to stand ignored and cannot be implemented. Taking note of the ratio of this Court, I have to hold that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability on this account. The proceedings taken in this behalf are the result of a misconception of the legal position. They have to stand ignored and cannot be implemented. Taking note of the ratio of this Court, I have to hold that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability on this account. In view of this, this writ petition so far as the petitioner is concerned, is allowed." 61. Following Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra) another learned single Judge of this Court in Mani, N. v. Commissioner, Villpuram Municipality (supra), tested the correctness of a show cause notice issued against a Revenue Inspector for recovery of the arrears of time barred property tax and lease amount. Facts of this case are, the petitioner therein was appointed as Bill Collector in the year 1963 in the respondent Municipality and later on promoted as Revenue Inspector on 14. 1989. He retired from service on 310. 2000. Impugned show cause notices therein were issued calling upon him to show cause as to why the loss suffered by the Municipality on account of failure to discharge his" official duty to collect the arrears towards property tax and lease amount should not be recovered from him. The said show cause notices were under challenge on the ground of jurisdictional issue relying upon the earlier orders of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3503 of 1996 dated 211. 1996 and O.A. No. 4761 of 1992 dated 112. 1997. Earlier, the Tribunal held that the Revenue Officers in the Local bodies cannot be made liable for the time barred arrears of tax dues and no recovery can be made from them. The conclusion was arrived at on the basis of paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1881 R.D.& L.A. Department, dated 19. 1981, wherein it was stated that the responsibility to take proceedings to recover tax before they become time barred, vests only with the Commissioner and the Revenu Officers are not responsible for the tax arrears, having become time barred and that the only duty of the Revenue Officers is to report about the tax arrears. 62. Following the decision in Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra) and the communication of the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, addressed to all the Regional Director of Municipal Administration in ROC. No. 75380/96/R1, dated 112. 62. Following the decision in Nagarajan v. Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem (supra) and the communication of the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, addressed to all the Regional Director of Municipal Administration in ROC. No. 75380/96/R1, dated 112. 1996, the learned single Judge of this Court, in Mani, N. v. Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality (supra), has set also the show cause notices issued to the petitioner therein. The communication, dated 12. 1996, referred to in the order is extracted hereunder, "The Municipal Employees Associations are demanding cancellation of recovery orders for time barred arrears among other things. In the meeting convened on 7. 1994 in the chambers of Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department to discuss with the office bearers of the Rural Development and Municipal employees Association Federation the following decision was taken on the above demand. "The Director of Municipal Administration has already granted time upto 9. 1994, Time barred arrears need not be recovered from the DCRG etc., from the retired employees." 2. To pursue further action in this regard, Government considered that proposal to write off time barred arrears due to Municipalities may be taken up after the elections to the Municipalities and after all the Municipal Councils pass necessary resolutions. In this regard, Government have now called for a consolidated report in this regard, in the letter cited. 3. Hence, I request you to instruct all the Municipal Commissioners within your jurisdiction to place the matter before the Municipal Council and to send a detailed report along with the copy of the resolution, in duplicate. After getting the same, I request you to send a consolidated report to this office, along with copies of resolution passed by the Municipal Councils, so as to send a report to Government. As the matter involves the long standing demand ofthe Municipal Employees, I request you to expedite your report. Sd/- V. Pitchai, For Director." 63. The communication of the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras addressed to ail the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, in his letter, dated 12. 1996, makes it clear that time barred arrears need not be recovered from the DCRG etc., of the retired employees. 64. In the case on hand, while permitting the petitioner to retire from service, a sum of Rs. 1996, makes it clear that time barred arrears need not be recovered from the DCRG etc., of the retired employees. 64. In the case on hand, while permitting the petitioner to retire from service, a sum of Rs. 51,566.45, has been shown as arrears of property tax and professional tax for the years 1984-85 to 1989-90, to be recovered from the petitioner. A further sum of Rs.41,642/- is also shown as arrears of time barred property tax for the period between 1989-88 and 1988-89. In view of the decisions of this Court as well as the communication of the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras, the amount proposed to be recovered, is wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary. 65. The department has not placed any satisfactory reasons for the inordinate delay in proceeding with the enquiry for nearly 17 years, even though the charges were framed as early as on 20.12.1976, for which, an explanation had been submitted by the petitioner. Even after issuing the charge memo, the case of the petitioner had been considered for promotion to higher posts. Though the respondents have alleged grave irregularities, he was never placed under suspension. On the contrary, on receipt of the explanation, he was considered for promotionto higher posts upto the level of Assistant Revenue Officer, and therefore the petitioner is justified in contending that the department had dropped further action in the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 1976. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipality in his Memo, dated 21. 1975 had directed the former general storekeeper to handover the charges to the petitioner and when the petitioner had refuted the charges in his explanation, if authorities had any strong materials against the petitioner, and considering the quantum of loss, the authorities could have suspended the petitioner and the others, and conducted a domestic enquiry then and there. Needless to say, that if grave charges are refuted, an detailed enquiry has to be conducted pinning down the responsibility of the persons and having received the explanation in 1976 and considered him for higher posts, blaming the petitioner at the fag end of his career is arbitrary. Needless to say, that if grave charges are refuted, an detailed enquiry has to be conducted pinning down the responsibility of the persons and having received the explanation in 1976 and considered him for higher posts, blaming the petitioner at the fag end of his career is arbitrary. Moreover, when the petitioner had alleged that his predecessor had failed to handover the charges, and though the respondents have contended that a memo was given to the petitioners predecessor in 1975, the counter affidavit is silent as to the course of action taken in furtherance of memo issued to him. Further, as pointed out by the teamed counsel for the petitioner that one ofthe allegations relate to more than 20 years. 66. In view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or conducting disciplinary proceedings, on the part of the employer, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that initiating fresh proceeding or continuing the departmental action against the petitioner after retirement, at this length of time, would cause serious prejudice, particularly when the relationship of master and servant is snapped. Therefore, on the facts of this case, having regard to the decision taken at the fag end of his career to conduct the departmental enquiry on the charges, said to have been pending from 1976, the only course of action that was available to the respondents was to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under FR 56(1)(c), i.e., suspension of the Government servant or the employee of the local body and retain him from service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the charges said to have been pending. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as held in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. (supra), State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Karupiah (supra), P. Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. (supra), and N. Kunnai Gowder v. Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (supra), and for inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the enquiry. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner. 67. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner. 67. For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the retrial benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.