Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the respondent, dated 27.1.2011, according to which the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, without prejudice to the pending Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Case No.3/2009, and W.P.No.21926 of 2009. 3. The impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 27.1.2011, had also stated that an enquiry into major charges had been contemplated consequent to the lapses noticed during the inspection made by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, on 1.7.2009, at the Erode Regional Office, in which the petitioner had been employed as a Regional Manager. 4. The petitioner has stated that he was working, as the Regional Manager, in Erode Region, in the year, 2009. While so, there was a surprise inspection by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode, on 1.7.2009. It had been alleged that some cash was found in the possession of the petitioner and there was no proper explanation for the presence of the money with the petitioner. Therefore, it was alleged to be tainted money. Accordingly, a complaint had been lodged, under Section 102(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, no names of the suspected persons had been shown and no arrest had been made. 5. It has been further stated that, on 3.8.2009, the petitioner had been transferred and posted as Manager (Administration/Accounts), Tiruvarur Region, vide Memo, dated 7.8.2009, issued by the respondent. Thereafter, there was no enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. However, the respondent had issued an order, dated 29.9.2009, placing the petitioner under suspension, contemplating an enquiry into certain lapses pointed out by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, in the inspection report, dated 1.7.2009. However, there was no reference in the said suspension order to any criminal complaint, pending before the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. 6. Challenging the said order of suspension the petitioner had approached this Court, in W.P.No.21926 of 2009. This Court, by its order, dated 3.11.2009, had admitted the writ petition and had granted an order of interim stay of the suspension. 6. Challenging the said order of suspension the petitioner had approached this Court, in W.P.No.21926 of 2009. This Court, by its order, dated 3.11.2009, had admitted the writ petition and had granted an order of interim stay of the suspension. While so, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had completed the enquiry and had submitted a report to the government, recommending departmental action, as no case was made out for proceeding against the petitioner, on criminal charges. 7. Based on the said report the respondent had prepared a charge memo and had sent it to the Government. However, the government had not approved the charge memo and therefore, no action had been initiated against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order, dated 27.1.2011, had been passed by the respondent, permitting the petitioner to retire from service, without prejudice to the pending Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Case No.3/2009 and W.P.No.21926 of 2009. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption officials, along with the assistance of the District Inspection Cell Officer, Coimbatore, had conducted a surprise check in the Regional Office of the Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, at Erode, on 1.7.2009. A sum of Rs.62,950/- had been seized during the inspection, as unaccounted money. Therefore, a case, in Crime No.3/2009, had been registered, on 1.7.2009, under Section 102(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 9. Accordingly, a charge memo had been drafted and sent to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, for vetting. Therefater, the Managing Director had approved the charge memo, on 24.2.2011. Though the draft charge memo had been sent to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, for vetting, before the retirement of the petitioner, it had been received from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, after vetting, only after the petitioner had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service, without prejudice to the pending Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Case No.3/2009. Therefore, the gratuity payable to the petitioner had been withheld. 10. It had also been stated that the petitioner could not be placed under suspension, as the petitioner had obtained an order of interim stay from this Court, on 3.11.2009, and it had been made absolute on 24.11.2010. Therefore, the gratuity payable to the petitioner had been withheld. 10. It had also been stated that the petitioner could not be placed under suspension, as the petitioner had obtained an order of interim stay from this Court, on 3.11.2009, and it had been made absolute on 24.11.2010. In such circumstances, the terminal benefits of the petitioner could not be sanctioned, as the cases against the petitioner were under investigation, and the disciplinary action contemplated against the petitioner is under process. 11. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent does not have the power or the authority to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner, if any, including the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Even if certain cases, relating to the petitioner, were pending, as alleged by the respondent, the respondent would not be entitled to withhold the retiral benefits due the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service, on 31.1.2011, on his attaining the age of superannuation. 12. As the petitioner had not been kept under suspension, without allowing him to retire from service, the respondent would not have the power or the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Further, nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondent, which would enable the respondent to deny the payment of the retiral benefits to the petitioner. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner the retiral benefits due to him, including the gratuity, as per the service conditions, and the rules and regulations, applicable to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.