Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant, in the Town Panchayat, in the year, 1974. He had been promoted as a Head Clerk in the year, 1994, and later he had been promoted, as an Executive Officer Grade-I, in the year, 1998. Thereafter, he had been further promoted, as a Selection Grade Executive Officer in the year, 2001 and as an Assistant Director during the year, 2009. As such, the petitioner had been discharging his duties without any blemish. 3. It had been further stated that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, on 31.8.2011, while he was holding the post of Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Dindigul Region, pursuant to the order made in G.O.(P) No.340, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Pe. Roo.) Department, dated 30.8.2011. By the said order the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service subject to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, vide charge memo, dated 19.8.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that there were certain audit objections relating to the alleged financial loss to the tune of Rs.2,63,616/-, said to have been caused by the petitioner, during the years 1999 to 2010, when he was working as an Executive Officer, by giving appointments to three persons, contrary to the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.263, Rural Development Department, dated 16.12.1992. 5. It had been further stated that the audit objections were found in 14 paragraphs, dealing with various aspects of the alleged irregularities, said to have been committed by the petitioner. Due to the objections raised by the Local Fund Audit Department, the Director of Town Panchyats, the second respondent herein, had framed charges against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, vide Charge memo, dated 19.8.2011. However, the petitioner had been allowed to retire from service, on 31.8.2011, without prejudice to the disciplinary action initiated against him, vide G.O.(P) No.340, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Pe. Roo.) Department, dated 30.8.2011. However, the petitioner had been allowed to retire from service, on 31.8.2011, without prejudice to the disciplinary action initiated against him, vide G.O.(P) No.340, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Pe. Roo.) Department, dated 30.8.2011. Based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner an enquiry officer had been appointed, vide proceedings, dated 20.12.2011. The report of the said enquiry is awaited. While so, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition, challenging the charge memo, dated 19.8.2011, issued by the first respondent. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits it is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent had framed the charge memo, dated 19.8.2011, based on the audit objections raised by the Local Fund Audit Department. The first charge in the said charge memo is in respect of the audit objections, relating to the years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The said audit objections is with regard to the appointment of a Night Watchman and a Tank Operator, said to have been made contrary to the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.263, Rural Development Department, dated 16.12.1992. In the said government order it has been stated that a post should not be created without obtaining the sanction from the state government. The appointments had been made due to the exigencies that had arisen at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the said persons had been brought under the regular service, in the year, 2000. In such circumstances, the audit objections raised by the Local Fund Audit Department cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the impugned charge memo had been issued, belatedly, only on 19.8.2011, in respect of the alleged irregularities, said to have been committed by the petitioner, by way of the audit objections raised in the year, 1999. No proper explanation has been given by the respondents for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, based on the audit objections raised in the year, 1999. 7. It had also been stated that all the audit paragraphs, except paragraph 46, had been settled and it had also been pointed out that no monetary loss had been caused by the alleged irregularities, said to have been committed by the petitioner. 7. It had also been stated that all the audit paragraphs, except paragraph 46, had been settled and it had also been pointed out that no monetary loss had been caused by the alleged irregularities, said to have been committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he is finding it extremely difficult to meet both ends meet and to live a normal life, without the payment of his retiral benefits. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, praying that this Court may be pleased to quash the charge memo, dated 19.8.2011, issued by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner, with interest, at the rate of 24% per annum, with effect from 1.9.2011, till the date of its realization. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Karuppiah (2005) 2 M.L.J. 342 , to support his contention that no disciplinary proceedings can be proceeded with, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, after he had been allowed to retire from service. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities, as pointed out in the audit objections raised by the Local Fund Audit Department. Even though there has been some delay in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, in respect of the irregularities committed by him, it cannot be said that such disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be proceeded with after he had been allowed to retire from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.8.2011. As per the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the disciplinary action already initiated against the petitioner can be continued with and penal action can also be taken against him for the proved irregularities committed by him and for the monetary loss incurred by the respondent department, due to the action of the petitioner. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted to be correct and valid in the eye of law. 10. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted to be correct and valid in the eye of law. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on their behalf and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents cannot proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, in order to penalize the petitioner for the alleged irregularities said to have been committed by him, as per the charge memo, dated 19.8.2011, after he had been allowed to retire from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.8.2011. There is no doubt that, under certain circumstances action could be initiated, in respect of the alleged irregularities, if the relevant rules permit such action after the person concerned had been allowed to retire from service. However, in the present case it would not be open to the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, alleging that he had committed certain irregularities, based on the audit objections raised by the Local Fund Audit Department to penalize the petitioner. 11. Even otherwise no explanation is found in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, with regard to the inordinate delay caused in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. When certain audit objections had been raised by the Local Fund Audit Department in the year, 1999, in respect of certain alleged irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner during the year, 1992, it could not be open to the respondents to initiate the disciplinary action against him during the year, 2011, by way of a charge memo, dated 31.8.2011, without adducing proper reasons for such inordinate delay. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned charge memo, dated 19.8.2011, and to direct the respondents to disburse the retiral benefits of the petitioner, who is said to be an handicapped person, as expeditiously possible, not later than three months 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.