Judgment :- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the letter of the first respondent dated 01.04.2010 with a prayer to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation with effect from 31.03.2003 and also for a further direction to the respondents to sanction all the terminal benefits to the petitioner at an early date with eligible interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined in the Government service as Senior Inspector of Co-operatives on 19.04.1968 under the second respondent. He was promoted as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies from 24.05.2000. He is having unblemished record of service. He was due to reire on superannuation with effect from 31.03.2003. On 07.03.2003, the second respondent also sent pension proposals to the Accountant General, Chennai. The petitioner was served with a suspension order under Rule 17[e] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules as per G.O. [2D] No.24, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 31.03.2003, i.e., on the date of his retirement. 2.1. The petitioner was also served with a charge memo by the second respondent dated 31.03.2003 with the following charges:- [1] The petitioner has recommended proposal sent by one Society seeking approval for Parakuruthi Layout which is not in accordance with provisions; and [2] For the above charge No.1, the petitioner has demanded and received Rs.4,00,000/-from Thiru R.Vasu. 2.2. Based on the above said two charges, the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service on 31.03.2003 and he was retained in service. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry, the Government passed an order in G.O. [2D] No.134, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 25.11.2005, dropping further action on the charges. 2.3. Even after dropping the charges, the suspension order dated 31.03.2003 was not revoked and the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service. He made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. As there was no response, the petitioner finally submitted a representation on 14.05.2009 to the Chief Minister Cell and thereafter filed a writ petition in WP.No.20113/2009 before this court and this court passed an order on 06.10.2009 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within a time frame. He made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. As there was no response, the petitioner finally submitted a representation on 14.05.2009 to the Chief Minister Cell and thereafter filed a writ petition in WP.No.20113/2009 before this court and this court passed an order on 06.10.2009 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within a time frame. Ultimately, the first respondent passed an order dated 01.04.2010 which was served on the petitioner on 04.04.2010 stating that since two more new cases are pending against the petitioner in the enquiry stage, he cannot be permitted to retire. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned letter is liable to be quashed and put forward the following contentions:- [a] No charge sheet has been filed and no enquiry has been ordered or conducted till date. [b] The order is against the instructions given by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 30.01.1996 wherein a fixed time limit of three months was stipulated for finalising the proceedings and the suspension period should not exceed three months and further, it is stated in the said order that the extension of suspension beyond 12 months should be reviewed and reported to the Government. But, all these rules and regulations have not been followed and on the other hand, contravened by the respondents. [c] The allegations relates to the period between 2000-2002 and even after the lapse of 11 years, not even the charge sheet was issued nor an enquiry was conducted till date and there is no explanation for such delay. [d] An order dropping the charges levelled against the petitioner was passed in G.O. [2D] No.101, dated 13.04.2009 and the said order was served on the petitioner only on 16.03.2011. [e] Even after the charges held to have been not proved against the petitioner in respect of the impugned order and even after the subsequent charges dropped, the respondents cannot refuse to revoke the suspension order and to permit the petitioner to retire. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on the following decisions:- [a] 2005 [4] CTC 403 [P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board]; [b] 2006 [2] CTC 635 [Elangovan Vs. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on the following decisions:- [a] 2005 [4] CTC 403 [P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board]; [b] 2006 [2] CTC 635 [Elangovan Vs. Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.]; and [c] 2011 [4] CTC 608 [Dr.B.Karanchandra Mohan Prasad Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] 5. Per contra, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned letter passed by the 1st respondent. It is contended that in the impugned letter itself it is stated that there are certain charges pending against the petitioner and in respect of one charge, the disciplinary proceedings was completed and in respect of the other charge, it is stated that the same is under investigation by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and as such, the first respondent has rightly passed the impugned letter rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking to revoke the suspension order and to permit him to retire. It is contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 17[e] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [D&A] Rules whereas the action was dropped in respect of the charge under Rule 17[b] of the Rules and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that on the basis of dropping of the charges, the suspension order should be revoked and he should be allowed to retire. Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the reports of the appropriate authority of the Government relating to the allegations of irregularities levelled against the petitioner during his services in Vellore Co-operative Society and Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society, have been received by the Government Housing and Urban Development Department and after examination, in its letter dated 03.05.2011, the Government has issued orders requesting the 2nd respondent herein to initiate departmental action, among others, against the petitioner and to send the report to the Government for passing the final orders and as such, a time frame may be fixed for completing the disciplinary proceedings. 6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinised the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned letter dated 01.04.2010 passed by the 1st respondent. 7. 6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinised the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned letter dated 01.04.2010 passed by the 1st respondent. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated that this is a classic case where the petitioner who was working as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been kept under prolonged suspension right from 31.03.2003, i.e., the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. A perusal of the suspension order dated 31.03.2003 reveals that the departmental and disciplinary actions are contemplated against the petitioner on certain allegations levelled against him. It is pertinent to note at this stage that it is not stated in the said suspension order that the disciplinary proceedings is contemplated for any grave charges against the petitioner. On the same date, i.e., 31.03.2003, another order was also passed, not allowing the petitioner to retire from service. The undisputed fact remains that in respect of the charges contemplated as per the suspension order and the order not allowing the petitioner to retire, an enquiry was conducted and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and ultimately held that the said charges have been dropped by the order dated 25.11.2005 in G.O. [2D] No.134, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department. It is very curious and unfortunate to note that even after the said charges have been dropped based on which the order of suspension and the order not allowing the petitioner to retire, were passed on 31.03.2003, the said suspension order is yet to be revoked for the reasons best known to the respondents. It is seen that the petitioner has rightly made a representation dated 14.05.2009 seeking for the relief of revoking the suspension order and permitting him to retire from service pursuant to the dropping of the charges as per the order dated 25.11.2005. The petitioner has also sent several other representations; but all his efforts proved futile and as a result, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP.No.20113/2009 and this court passed an order dated 06.10.2009 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2009 and pass orders on the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 8. 8. Pursuant to the said order, the present impugned letter dated 01.04.2010 is passed by the 1st respondent on 01.04.2010. A perusal of the impugned letter reveals that the petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that certain disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner while the petitioner was functioning as Deputy Registrar in Vellore Co-operative Societies and investigation is also pending on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in respect of the appointment of the Planning Officer at Kancheepuram Housing Co-operative Society during his tenure as the Deputy Registrar. It is pertinent to note that even during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has been served with the order dated 13.04.2009 made in G.O. [D] No.101, on 16.03.2011 dropping the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the said charges have been dropped twice by the 1st respondent. The perusal of the impugned letter would further disclose that the said order does not contain any reference or proceedings number in respect of the alleged pendency of any disciplinary proceedings or any investigation by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. By stating vague and bald allegations in the impugned letter, the 1st respondent has arbitrarily and mechanically rejected the petitioner's representation. 9. It is needless to state that keeping the delinquent officer under suspension for an indefinite period and that too, without any reason or basis and even after the dropping of charges, is wholly unjustified. At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated that the orders dated 31.03.2003 suspending the petitioner and not allowing him to retire from service have been kept alive without any basis or reason. This is not a case of mere inordinate and unexplained delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. This is a case of keeping the delinquent officer under suspension and not permitting him to retire without any charges at all till date. It is seen that the respondents have not filed any counter. Learned Special Government Pleader has produced a draft counter and even the perusal of the said draft counter, does not disclose any reason for keeping the two orders, viz., the suspension order and the order not allowing the petitioner to retire, alive. There is absolutely no justification to reject the petitioner's representation for seeking the relief of revoking the suspension order and permitting him to retire. 10. There is absolutely no justification to reject the petitioner's representation for seeking the relief of revoking the suspension order and permitting him to retire. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Dr.B.KARANCHANDRA MOHAN PRASATH, PROFESSION & H.O.D. OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, MADURAI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND GOVERNMENT RAJAJI HOSPITAL, MADURAI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND 2 OTHERS reported in 2011-4-CTC-608. The learned Single Judge, in the said decision has dealt with a similar matter and held that:- "The question that has arisen for consideration is whether a Government employee could be placed under suspension on an enquiry on grave allegations are pending against him, invoking Rule 17[b] of the Rules. In order to appreciate the said contention, it would be useful to extract Rule 17[e] of the Rules, which is extracted hereunder:- "17[e][1] A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where – [1] an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending, or [2] a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest." The said Rule contemplates that a member of service may be placed under suspension from service, if an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending. It does not envisage keeping a member of service under suspension, where an enquiry into grave allegations against him are pending. The impugned order of suspension has been passed on the ground that an enquiry into grave allegations are pending against him. The same is not contemplated under Rule 17[e] of the Rules." Further the learned Single Judge has further held as follows:- "That apart, whether initiation of disciplinary proceedings means that charge memo should be pending against the particular officer was a question came up for consideration before this court. In the Judgment in D.R.P. Sundharam Vs. Canara Bank represented by its Executive Director reported in I have considered the said point and I have held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings means that the charge memo should be pending, before the petitioner attains the age of superannuation. In the Judgment in D.R.P. Sundharam Vs. Canara Bank represented by its Executive Director reported in I have considered the said point and I have held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings means that the charge memo should be pending, before the petitioner attains the age of superannuation. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the respondents that the charge memo has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has been called upon to answer to the charges. It is not even stated in the impugned order of suspension that the charge memo has been issued to the petitioner and the same is pending against the petitioner. In Union of India V. K.V.Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken the view that the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. Paragraph No.6 of the order made thereunder is usefully extracted here under:- "6.) On the first question, viz., s to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the Disciplinary/Criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge memo in a deceased or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the Departmental proceedings/Criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo / Charge sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes some time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue the charge memo / Charge sheet, it would not be in the interest of purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment, etc., does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been experienced so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly, when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been experienced so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly, when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge memo / Charge sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should ot take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant Rules and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities, thus, are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos.1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows:- [1] Consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official. [2] ............... [3] ............... [4] The sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before." There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No.1 should be read to mean that the promotion, etc., cannot be withheld merely because some Disciplinary/Criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge memo / Charge sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions. We, therefore, repel the challenge of the appellant Authorities to the said finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal." In the given case on hand, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 30.04.2010 of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption alleging possession of properties/pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioner has offered his explanation as early as on 06.05.2010. The petitioner has offered his explanation as early as on 06.05.2010. So far, no criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner even though more than one year has lapsed. The said judgment makes it very clear that unless otherwise the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and an enquiry into the same is pending, a Government servant cannot be placed under suspension. In the case on hand, as stated already, it is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and the same is pending against the petitioner." The principle laid down by this court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the case cited above, the learned Single Judge has held that not even charge memo is issued against the delinquent officer. But, as far as the case on hand is concerned, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner at the time of passing the suspension order as well as at the time of passing the order of not permitting the petitioner to retire from service. After holding the enquiry, the said charges have been dropped and the proceedings were also dropped. Therefore, the question of survival of the said orders not at all arises and there is no justification for not revoking the suspension order and not permitting the petitioner to retire from service. 11. The learned counsel also rightly placed reliance on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNHB reported in 2005 [4] CTC 403. The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred its earlier judgment in STATE OF M.P. Vs. BANI SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in 1990 Supp. SCC 738, in P.V.MAHADEVAN's case [cited supra] and held in Bani Singh's case as here under:- "The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal." By referring to its yet another earlier decision in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. N.RADHAKRISHNAN reported in 1998 [4] SCC 154, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as here under:- "19.) It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their 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 the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V.MAHADEVAN's case [cited supra] has ultimately held as here under:- "10.) The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition. 11.) Our attention was also drawn to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Board in this appeal. Though some explanation was given, the explanation offered is not at all convincing. It is stated in the counter affidavit for the first time that the irregularity during the year 1990, for which disciplinary action had been initiated against the appellant in the year 2000, came to light in the audit report for the second half of 1994-1995. 12.) Section 118 and 119 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1961 read thus : "118.) At the end of every year, the Board shall submit to the Government an abstract of the accounts of its receipts and expenditure for such year. 12.) Section 118 and 119 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1961 read thus : "118.) At the end of every year, the Board shall submit to the Government an abstract of the accounts of its receipts and expenditure for such year. 119.) The accounts of the Board shall be examined and audited once in every year by such auditor as the Government may appoint in this behalf." 13.) Section 118 specifically provides for submission of the abstracts of the accounts at the end of every year and Section 119 relates to annual audit of accounts. These two statutory provisions have not been complied with at all. In the instant case the transaction took place in the year 1990. The expenditure ought to have been considered in the accounts of the succeeding year. In the instant case the audit report was ultimately released in the 1994-1995. The explanation offered for the delay in finalising the audit account cannot stand scrutiny in view of the above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 17. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel is appearing for the respondent. His submission that the period from the date of commission of the irregularities by the appellant to the date on which it came to the knowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delay on the part of the Board in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant has no merit and force. The stand now taken by the respondent in this Court in the counter affidavit is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay. 14.) Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. 14.) Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest 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." 12. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the alleged transaction or the incident said to have taken place between the years 2000-2002 and the suspension order and the order not permitting the petitioner to retire from service were issued as early as on 31.03.2003 and thereafter the charges, on which the said orders have been passed, have been dropped by the order dated 25.11.2005 and further action dropped and even thereafter, the orders of suspension and not permitting the petitioner to retire have not been revoked and no further proceedings conducted till date and there is absolutely no explanation for such an inordinate delay. Therefore, at this distance of time and that too, the petitioner has been subjected to the ordeal of pendency of suspension order and not permitting to retire for indefinite period, question of directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a time frame not at all arises. The inordinate delay and unjustified act of the respondent to keep the petitioner under the prolonged suspension without specific charge resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned letter dated 01.04.2010 is unsustainable in law. The inordinate delay and unjustified act of the respondent to keep the petitioner under the prolonged suspension without specific charge resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned letter dated 01.04.2010 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned letter passed by the 1st respondent dated 01.04.2010 in No.26952/CD2/06 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 14. Consequently, the respondents herein are directed to revoke the suspension order dated 31.03.2003 passed by the 1st respondent and the respondents are further directed to permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2003 and to settle all the terminal and retiral benefits to the petitioner. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.