Judgment Heard both sides. The two writ petitions are filed by one and the same person. In the first writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 9. 2003, which is a charge memo framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Salem in the departmental enquiry No.9 of 2002 against the petitioner, who was formerly working as a District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Kancheepuram. 2. The charges were framed not only against the petitioner, but also against eight other persons, including two Assistants working in the office, three Special Tahsildars, one Office Superintendent, one Special Deputy Collector and one Headmaster. The charge against the petitioner was he was involved in a scam of preparing and signing Pay Fixation orders with the connivance of other officers by making insertion and alteration in the service book of teachers, Headmasters and Wardens in Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur Districts and also creating huge loss to the Government by making ineligible claims in respect of 111 beneficiaries and misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,06,11,617/-. They were accused of not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty in Government service and their conduct is unbecoming of a Government servant. 3. The petitioner also filed a reply to the charge memo. The case of the petitioner was that the charge memo has been framed subsequent to the time frame fixed by the Tribunal and therefore, it is invalid. It was further submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.5498 and 5677 of 2000, dated 20.8.2002 has become final. Since no appeal has been filed, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with. It was also stated that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has initiated proceedings long after the Tribunals order. .4. Further, it was also stated that the delinquency had taken place in the year 1997, but the charge memo has been framed in the year 2002 and no final orders have been passed. The Tribunal in its order merely stated that since the petitioner was to retire from service on 37. 2000, the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings should be passed within three months and if no final order is passed, the disciplinary proceedings will come to an end. The Tribunal in its order merely stated that since the petitioner was to retire from service on 37. 2000, the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings should be passed within three months and if no final order is passed, the disciplinary proceedings will come to an end. But, it is never brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in view of the corruption charges against the individuals and a joint trial was conducted against the petitioner along with eight other officers. Therefore, the question of fixing any time limit may not arise unless the Tribunal was made aware such proceedings. 5. In W.P.No.20212 of 2009, the petitioner had challenged the G.O.(2D) No.226 Revenue Department, dated 27. 2000 and G.O.(2D) No.232 Revenue Department, dated 37. 2000 and prayed for a direction to retire the petitioner from service on 37. 2000. 6. By these two orders, the Government had prevented the petitioner from retiring from service by the exercise of power under FR 56(1)(c) and also suspended the petitioner so that the charges by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption can be continued. 7. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a written instructions, dated 10. 2009. It is stated in the instructions that the petitioner was given a copy of the enquiry officers findings and further explanation had been sought for, which is under examination by the Government. It was also stated that the same petitioner had also caused huge loss to an extent of Rs.7 Crores to the Government and a criminal case was filed against the petitioner. 8. It was also stated that the petitioner had illegally granted patta to 0.51 cents of Government land to one John Alfred, which is classified as Anadeenam in Koyambedu village. The encroacher has put up a multi-storeyed building to run a college on the said lands. The petitioner is also facing an enquiry on that ground. It was further stated that the petitioner while he was working as an Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, had passed an illegal order on 26. 2000 and granted settlement to an extent of 2.01 = acres of Eri Poramboke in Kolathur village and the value of the land is Rs.7 Crores. A criminal case in Crime No.758 of 2005 has been registered on 110. 2005. 2000 and granted settlement to an extent of 2.01 = acres of Eri Poramboke in Kolathur village and the value of the land is Rs.7 Crores. A criminal case in Crime No.758 of 2005 has been registered on 110. 2005. Thus the petitioner had passed illegal orders in 17 cases involving Government lands. .9. It was further stated that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai. Pallikaranai village of Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District .is a ryotwari village and resurvey and resettlement operations were over in 1911 itself. The land in S.No.657 was treated as Government poramboke Kazhuveli. The petitioner allowed ryotwari patta to one Krishnan to an extent of 10.00 acres as if the village was taken over under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. In respect of the same, a disciplinary action was also pending. The petitioner who was the Deputy Collector and formerly Assistant Settlement Officer was arrested in a criminal case in Central Crime No.785/2005 on 110. 2005 and remanded to Central jail, Chennai for various offences. 10. With these background, the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence. The contentions raised by the respondents are fully supportable. Considering the fact that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry before the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and the report is receiving attention by the State Government and that the petitioner has been given further opportunity to give his explanation, it is not a fit case where he can be permitted to retire from service. 11. It must also be noted that the earlier order passed by the Tribunal cannot be a ground to revoke the charge memo, since the petitioner never informed the Tribunal about the case being referred to the disciplinary Tribunal. Therefore, any direction to the State Government to complete the enquiry is not in its hands. But such a direction can be given only to Tribunal which is independently enquiring into such an issue. Apart from the question of revoking the order passed under FR 56(1)(c) as well as suspension, the question of permitting the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 37. 2007 is clearly not permissible in view of the several criminal acts indulged by the petitioner, for which both departmental action and criminal action are under investigation. 12. In the light of the above, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. 2007 is clearly not permissible in view of the several criminal acts indulged by the petitioner, for which both departmental action and criminal action are under investigation. 12. In the light of the above, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions also stand dismissed.