Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, who was formerly an Additional Public Prosecutor at Nagapattinam filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the first respondent State dated 21.04.2009 and seeks to set aside the same with a further direction to settle his retirement benefits within a reasonable time. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 02.06.2009. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim stay, this Court held that in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.1138 of 2008, challenging the charge memo dated 22.08.2005, there was a direction to complete the enquiry and since no enquiry was completed, the show cause notice was stayed by this Court. 3. This court by an order dated 11.08.2008 in W.P.No.1138 of 2008 gave a direction to pass final orders on the enquiry initiated against the petitioner within a period of four weeks and in the event of final orders being detriment to the interest of the petitioner, he was at liberty to challenge the same if he so desires in filing an appeal. It is necessary to refer the findings recorded in the earlier writ petition for better appreciation of the facts involved in the present case: "5. On hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, the fact that the enquiry pursuant to the impugned charge memo has been completed is not disputed. Only final order has to be passed. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that once on the same set of facts earlier the enquiry had been completed and found by the authorities appointed that the charges were not proved whether it is proper for the second respondent to fame same set of charges once again. The said argument has become academic in the sense that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry conducted by the second respondent and full opportunity has been given to him. In view of the subsequent developments, I am of the considered view that the second respondent should be directed to pass final orders giving liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all the points raised in this writ petition in the event of the second respondent passing any final order detriment to the interest of the petitioner by way of appeal." 4. Even while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court noted that the petitioner was not allowed to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.07.2008 because of the pendency of the proceedings by an order in G.O.(2D) No.449 Home Department, dated 28.07.2008 and his services were retained under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules by G.O.(2D) No.466, Home Department, dated 31.07.2008. 5. After an order was passed by this Court, the State Government issued G.O.(2D) No.169, Home Department, dated 15.04.2009 and allowed the petitioner to retire from service from the date of his superannuation viz., on 31.07.2008 but it was stated that it was without prejudice to the departmental action pending against him. It was thereafter on the basis of the enquiry report obtained, and considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.08.2006, the State Government found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and it had reached the provisional conclusion by imposing the punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for a period of two years for the proved charges. Therefore, in the light of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Challenging the said show cause notice, the writ petition came to be filed as noted above. 6. This Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the original enquiry proceedings for perusal by this court. Accordingly, the original file was produced for perusal by this Court. 7. Mr.K.Venkatramani, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was wrong to issue the charge memo as earlier two enquiry reports in respect of the same charges were accepted and the charges were found to be false. In the absence of any new material, no fresh charge memo can be issued. The Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner and none of the charges can be said to be proved. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for more than one reason. In the absence of any new material, no fresh charge memo can be issued. The Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner and none of the charges can be said to be proved. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for more than one reason. In the earlier round of litigation, this court held that the petitioner's argument had become academic as he had participated in the enquiry and full opportunity was given to him and therefore, the respondents were allowed to pass final orders giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points raised in that writ petition in the event of the final order being detriment to the interest of the petitioner by way of appeal. 8. In the present case, the petitioner did not adhere to the direction given by this Court. The petitioner had approached this Court even at the stage of show cause notice. Nothing prevented the petitioner from making further explanation to the State Government pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2009 and on this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. From the original file, though there is an evidence that a complaint was received from an Office Assistant, the learned Senior Counsel attempted to state that it is the standard practice of all Office Assistants to make complaints against the superiors whenever they were strict in their dealings with them and therefore, no credence can be attached to them, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. In the present case, this Court has already found the petitioner was given full opportunity in the enquiry and the State Government after applying its mind found that for the proved charges, it had decided to impose the punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for a period of two years, which hardly works out to Rs.12,000/- in total. The petitioner was let off with the fine amount and no other penalty can also be imposed because of the petitioner having reached the age of superannuation. 9. This Court is not inclined to accept the sweeping contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Ultimately, it is for the competent authority to be satisfied with the materials placed and accepted the quantum of evidence. 9. This Court is not inclined to accept the sweeping contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Ultimately, it is for the competent authority to be satisfied with the materials placed and accepted the quantum of evidence. This Court do not find any perversity in the findings recorded against the petitioner and it is not a case of no legal evidence available against the petitioner in respect of the charge memos given to the petitioner.