Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was initially appointed, as a Junior Assistant, in the Commercial Taxes Department, in the year, 1970. Later, he had been promoted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, and posted at Tirunelveli. He was discharging his duties at Ponamani check post, Madurai, from 18.3.1988 to 19.3.1988. While so, the officials of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- corruption had arrested the petitioner and two others, on the charge that there was a demand of Rs.200/-, as bribe, from the conductor of a lorry, passing through the Ponamani check post, Madurai. Based on the said charge, the petitioner had been placed under suspension, with effect from 19.2.1988, by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Enf.), Madurai Post, in No.A1/4364/88, dated 19.3.1988. Thereafter, a criminal case, in crime No.2 of 1988, had been instituted, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, had filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, stating that the state Government had decided to place the case of the accused, before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and therefore, further action before the criminal court has been dropped. Based on the report of the Inspector of Police, the criminal case had been closed. 3. The petitioner has further stated that the trial before the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings did not commence. No charge memo had been served on the petitioner. Hence, he had filed an original application, in O.A.No.36 of 1989, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, challenging the suspension order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Enf.) Madurai post, in No.A1/4364/88, dated 19.3.1988. 4. It had also been stated that the Tribunal, by its order, dated 2.3.1989, had allowed the original application, setting aside the order of suspension and directing the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner in service. However, liberty had been granted to the authorities concerned, the respondents in the original application, to resort to any disciplinary action, if so advised, as contemplated under the relevant Rules. However, liberty had been granted to the authorities concerned, the respondents in the original application, to resort to any disciplinary action, if so advised, as contemplated under the relevant Rules. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, on 4.4.1989, and posted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer/Manager, in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Sivakasi. Thereafter, the petitioner was once again placed under suspension, based on the same allegation. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an original application, in O.A.No.604 of 1989, challenging the order of suspension, dated 24.4.1989, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, (Enforcement), Madurai, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 5. It had also been stated that the Tribunal, by its order, dated 3.5.1989, had allowed the original application, setting aside the impugned order. However, the Tribunal had observed that the respondent was at liberty to suspend the petitioner, if so advised, after the service of charges, by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner had been reinstated in service. Since, the charges had not been served on the petitioner, as observed by the Tribunal, the petitioner had preferred another original application, in O.A.No.859 of 1989, before the Tribunal. By an order, dated 22.9.1989, the Tribunal had allowed the original application, quashing the order of suspension, as there was no information as to whether the order of suspension, passed against the petitioner, had been further extended. However, the first respondent, without reinstating the petitioner in service, had issued an order, dated 3.1.1990, extending the suspension of the petitioner, for a further period of six months, till the disposal of the enquiry against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed an original application, in O.A.No.223 of 1990, before the Tribunal, challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 3.1.1990, extending the suspension of the petitioner, for a further period of six months. By an order, dated 8.2.1990, the Tribunal had allowed the original application. Thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, on 2.3.1990, as an Assistant Commercial Tax officer/Superintendent, in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gingee. 6. Later, the petitioner had been transferred and posted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, in the Commercial Tax Office-2, Tuticorin. By an order, dated 8.2.1990, the Tribunal had allowed the original application. Thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, on 2.3.1990, as an Assistant Commercial Tax officer/Superintendent, in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gingee. 6. Later, the petitioner had been transferred and posted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, in the Commercial Tax Office-2, Tuticorin. While so, the first respondent had issued an order, dated 12.12.1997, suspending the petitioner from service, stating that he had collected certain amounts, from the dealers by way of tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act and that he had remitted the amounts before the authorities concerned, after a considerable delay, resulting in temporary misappropriation of the amounts due to the Government. 7. It had also been stated that the petitioner had filed the original application, in O.A.No.5631 of 1998, challenging the suspension order, dated 12.12.1997, passed by the first respondent. An order of interim stay of the suspension order had been granted by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, on 25.8.1998, as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, in the office of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), (Enforcement) Tirunelveli. However, a charge memo, dated 4.3.1998, had been issued by the first respondent, containing four charges. An enquiry had been held based on the said charges framed against the petitioner. While so, a show cause notice, dated 7.9.2000, had been issued, asking the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the said notice, proposing the punishment of removal from service. Since, the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent, in the show cause notice, dated 7.9.2000, was arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner had filed an original application, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.3177 of 2001. The Tribunal, having admitted the original application, had granted an order of interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 7.9.2000. In spite of the said interim order, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 10.4.2001, removing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the petitioner had filed another original application, in O.A.No.6138 of 2001, challenging the order of removal passed against the petitioner. 8. In spite of the said interim order, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 10.4.2001, removing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the petitioner had filed another original application, in O.A.No.6138 of 2001, challenging the order of removal passed against the petitioner. 8. It had also been stated that by its order, dated 6.2.2003, the Tribunal had allowed the original application, directing the respondent therein to reinstate the petitioner in service,with full back wages and other service benefits. The first respondent had challenged the said order, dated 6.2.2003, passed by the Tribunal, in W.P.Nos.25089 and 25090 of 2003. By a common order, dated 18.8.2006, this Court had disposed of the writ petitions, directing the first respondent to modify the order of punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner into that of compulsory retirement and directing the first respondent to remit the pensionary benefits, within a period of 8 weeks. However, the first respondent had not complied with the order passed by this Court, dated 18.8.2006. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition No.705 of 2007, to punish the first respondent, for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 18.8.2006. However, on finding that there was no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, dated 18.8.2006, this Court had closed the contempt petition. However, the petitioner had not paid the backwages due to him for the periods, 19.3.1988 to 4.4.1989, 25.4.1989 to 28.2.1990 and 23.12.1997 to 26.8.1998. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it had been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation of service and for the monetary benefits, which he has claimed, as the case against the petitioner is pending before the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. 10. It had also been stated that the case against the petitioner can be continued, as deemed proceedings, under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Further, Fundamental Rules 54(1) and 54(6) would be applicable to the petitioner. As such, the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, if any, could not be finalised. 11. 10. It had also been stated that the case against the petitioner can be continued, as deemed proceedings, under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Further, Fundamental Rules 54(1) and 54(6) would be applicable to the petitioner. As such, the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, if any, could not be finalised. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent in not treating the periods of suspension of the petitioner, as regular service, after the suspension orders had been set side by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He had further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner, on the ground that the case against the petitioner was pending before the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, is arbitrary and illegal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that, in spite of the fact that the charges had been framed against the petitioner, nearly two decades back, it had not attained finality until the petitioner had retired from service. As such, it would not be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, after his retirement from service. Even though three suspension orders, passed against the petitioner, had been set aside, by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the periods, when the petitioner was under suspension, had not been regularised and the benefits due to the petitioner for the said periods had not been granted to him. After the suspension orders passed against the petitioner had been quashed, by the Tribunal, the respondents ought to have paid to the petitioner the monetary benefits due to him, for the periods in question, especially, in view of the fact that an order had been passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 18.8.2006, made in W.P.Nos.25089 and 25090 of 2003, modifying the order of removal from service, passed against the petitioner, to that of compulsory retirement and as it had also directed the release of the pensionary benefits, in favour of the petitioner, within the time specified in the said order. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- 13.1. In THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- 13.1. In THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R.KARUPPIAH (2005 (3) CTC 4, the Supreme Court had held that no disciplinary proceedings can be conducted against the Government servant, after he is allowed to retire from service, on reaching the age of superannuation, unless an order had been passed retaining him in service, complying with the requirement of Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c). 13.2. In MAHADEVAN P.V. Vs. M.D., TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD (2005 (4) CTC 403), the supreme Court, while quashing the charge memo issued against the employee, had permitted him to draw the retiral benefits, stating that the delay of 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings would be prejudicial to the public interest and the interest of the employee concerned. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 18.8.2006, made in W.P.Nos.25089 and 25090 of 2003, (THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENNAI Vs. P.MURUGESAN AND ANOTHER) wherein, similar facts had arisen for the consideration of this Court, to state that the petitioner is entitled to receive the monetary benefits for the periods 19.3.1988 to 4.4.1989, 25.4.1989 to 28.2.1990 and 23.12.1997 to 26.8.1998, when he had been kept under suspension. 15. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, on 18.8.2006, made in W.P.Nos.25089 and 25090 of 2003, modifying the order of removal, passed against the petitioner, to that of compulsory retirement, without backwages, makes it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for the full salary, as claimed by him, for the periods 19.3.1988 to 4.4.1989, 25.4.1989 to 28.2.1990 and 23.12.1997 to 26.8.1998, when he was under suspension. 16. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that the suspension orders passed against the petitioner had been set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 16. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that the suspension orders passed against the petitioner had been set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. While so, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be entitled to full salary and other monetary benefits, if any, for the periods 19.3.1988 to 4.4.1989, 25.4.1989 to 28.2.1990 and 23.12.1997 to 26.8.1998, when he was under suspension from service. 17. Further, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 18.8.2006, made in W.P.Nos.25089 and 25090 of 2003, filed by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the first respondent herein, modified the order of removal passed against the petitioner to that of compulsory retirement. Even though it had been stated in the said order, dated 18.8.2006, that the petitioner herein is not entitled to any backwages, it cannot be said that the respondents are entitled to deny the salary, due to the petitioner, for the periods when he was kept under suspension from service. Further, the respondents have not been in a position to show that they have the power or the jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if any, after his retirement from service. 18. It is seen that this Court, by its order, dated 18.8.2006, made in W.P.Nos.25089 and 25090 of 2003, had directed the first respondent to release the pensionary benefits, due to the petitioner, within the periods specified therein. As such, it is clear that the petitioner would be entitled for the monetary benefits, as claimed by him, for the periods 19.3.1988 to 4.4.1989, 25.4.1989 to 28.2.1990 and 23.12.1997 to 26.8.1998, when he was under suspension from service. As such, the first respondent is directed to pay the monetary benefits, due to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.