JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of order A3/5874/2004 dated 28-06-2010 and quash it, consequently direct the respondent to declare the petitioner as retired on the forenoon of 30-06-2010, and to pay all monetary benefits and pension, with interest. 2. The impugned order reads as under: "PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK OFFICE CHENGAM Present: Thirumathi. N. Angayarkanni. B.Sc., Dated: 28.06.2010 Sub: Village Administration – Tiruvannamalai District - Chengam Taluk – Thiru. Selvam as Village Assistant in Panaiolaipady Village U/S – Extending Service beyond Superannuation order issued. Ref: This Office Pro.No.A3/15874/2004, Dated: 18.08.2007 Orders: Whereas Thiru. M. Selvam, Village Assistant Panaiolaipady Village of Chengam Taluk has been placed under suspension in the proceeding cited. And whereas the said Thiru. M. Selvam is attaining the age of Superannuation on the Afternoon 30.06.2010 and the Criminal Offence is still under investigation against him. And whereas in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary that the said Thiru. M. Selvam, under suspension shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of suspension on the Afternoon of 30.06.2010, but retained in service until Criminal offence under investigation against him is concluded and final orders passed there on by the competent authority. During such extension of service, the service rights or the said of Thiru. M. Selvam under suspension shall freeze at the level reached on the date of superannuation, Viz.,30.06.2010 Afternoon and the salary during that period shall not exceed the amount of pension which would have accrued to him on the date. Tahsildar, Chengam." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contend that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as no departmental proceedings under Rule 17B of the Civil Service Rules were initiated against the petitioner nor any departmental proceedings are pending. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to withhold the retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of super-annuation, especially when the alleged offence is not with regard to his departmental duties but for an act done outside the service. 4. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to withhold the retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of super-annuation, especially when the alleged offence is not with regard to his departmental duties but for an act done outside the service. 4. It is also the contention of the petitioner, that even otherwise no criminal case can be said to be pending against the petitioner, as the case is at the stage of registration of the FIR and no charge has been framed against the petitioner, so far. 5. On consideration, I find force in this writ petition. It is settled law that the Departmental proceedings commence when the charge memo is issued, similarly, the criminal proceedings can be said to be pending only when charge is framed by the criminal court. 6. It is admitted that as on date there is neither any departmental proceedings nor criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, which could entitle the respondent to keep the petitioner under suspension or retain him in service after attaining the age of super-annuation. 7. The impugned order, therefore, on the face of it, amounts to colourable exercise of power and therefore, cannot be sustainable in law, being arbitrary. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondent, to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.