JUDGMENT :- 1. The two petitioners have filed the two writ petitions challenging an order passed by the second respondent, i.e., Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, dated 29.06.2010 and seeks to quash the same and for consequential direction to the first respondent Government to disburse the full pensionary benefits to which the petitioner in the first writ petition is entitled to by treating the services of the first writ petitioner as having retired on superannuation on 30.6.2010 and that in the case of the second writ petitioner, after setting aside the charges framed, seeks for a direction to promote him to the post of Executive Engineer by including his name in the panel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion as Executive Engineers for the year 2010-11 pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.(D)No.383, Public Works Department, dated 19.08.2010 and place the petitioner as Serial No.55A in between the name of M.Kesavalu (Sl.No.55) and B.Ravichandran (Sl.No.56) together with all monetary benefits. 2. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Judge, who was in-charge of admission, was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions and after hearing arguments, orders were reserved. However, on 01.12.2010, the matter was listed and on that day, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioners were involved in graft charges and had awarded contracts of Public Utility Buildings like hospitals to a private company in violation of rules. They had also failed to take action against the default tenderers who had failed to execute the contract works awarded to them. The petitioners had also acted in subversion of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules 2000. After framing charges, the Tribunal had listed out as many as 29 witnesses in support of the charges. The petitioners instead of facing the charges before the Tribunal and establishing their innocent, have rushed to this court challenging the charges. 4. At the outset, this court informed the petitioners that there are no grounds to interfere with the charge memo and it is for the petitioners to participate in the enquiry before the Commissioner and establish their innocence. However, the petitioners contended that the charges levelled against them are vague and that with such vague charges, the Tribunal cannot proceed with the enquiry. However, the petitioners contended that the charges levelled against them are vague and that with such vague charges, the Tribunal cannot proceed with the enquiry. They relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 . 5. In the affidavit, they had referred to various statements of witnesses enclosed in the departmental enquiry. The petitioners had also enclosed statements of witnesses in their typed set. Therefore, it cannot be said that charges are vague. On the other hand, charges are referable to evidence on record. It only gives a skeleton nature of charges. Only when the statements of witnesses are recorded and they are cross examined and when findings are rendered, the actual involvement of petitioners can come to light. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon various division bench judgments of this court, which are as follows: (a) 2005 (2) CTC 169 (Union of India, rep by the Secretary to Government of Pondicherry, (Revenue Department), Pondicherry and another Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and another) (b) 2005 (3) CTC 4 (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others Vs. R.Karuppiah and another) (c) 2005 (5) CTC 380 (A.Obaidhullah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai and another) (d) 2007 (5) CTC 491 (N.Kunnai Gowder Vs. The Coimbatore District, Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd.) These were for contending that after reaching the age of superannuation, there is no employer and employee relationship. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be proceeded with. They also stated that if charges related to old issues, that cannot also be gone into. 7. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submissions. The second writ petitioner is still in service and the first writ petitioner himself is seeking for pensionary benefits. Since it is pensionary service, an enquiry can be held for any misconduct as ultimately it will have impact on the pension eligibility of the petitioner who receives pension. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners are in no way helpful to the case on hand. On the other hand, all these decisions have been referred to by the division bench of this court vide judgment in T.K.K.Tharmar Vs. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners are in no way helpful to the case on hand. On the other hand, all these decisions have been referred to by the division bench of this court vide judgment in T.K.K.Tharmar Vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai-104 and others reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 877 . After reviewing all the previous cases including the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the division bench held in paragraphs 27 and 28 as follows: "27. Therefore, in the light of the above, it has to be held that even after retirement, if there are statutory Rules providing for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, no exception can be taken for continuing a disciplinary action by an employer. 28. In the present case, Rule 9 is a complete answer for the contention raised by the petitioner. It must also be noted that very recently, the Supreme Court in the judgment in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon (2008) 2 SCC 41 dealt with a case of the employer's right to initiate action even after retirement. The following passage found in paragraphs 27 and 28 may be usefully reproduced: Para 27:"In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 , the Court held that two concepts: (i) resignation; and (ii) retirement were different and employed for different purposes and in different contexts. Resignation brings about complete cessation of master and servant relationship, but retirement does not do so. In case of retirement, master and servant relationship continues for grant of retiral benefits. Para 28:If it is so, the appellant Corporation, in our opinion, is right in submitting that the proceedings could have been continued after the retirement of the respondent employee as far as the financial loss caused to the Corporation because of negligence on the part of employee and the benefit claimed by the respondent workman on his terminal benefits are concerned. 8. In the light of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.