JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was an Executive Engineer at the time of retirement from the service of the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (for short SIPCOT) on 31.12.2012. He rendered 36 years of service. 2. Before his retirement, he was issued with three charge memos in Ref.No.E3/Misc/33/2012 dated 12.10.2012, Ref.No.E3/Misc/33/2012 dated 19.12.2012 and Ref.No.E3/Misc/37/2012 dated 19.12.2012. 3. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.7291 of 2013 to quash the aforesaid charge memos dated 12.10.2012 and 19.12.2013 and sought for a direction to the respondents to settle his gratuity and other retirement benefits due to him. W.P.No.7292 of 2013 was filed to quash the third charge memo in Ref.No.E3/Misc/37/2012 dated 19.12.2012. 4. The charge memos are questioned on the sole ground that the respondents have no power and jurisdiction to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2012 and the disciplinary proceedings would get abated after retirement. 5. On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that even after retirement, disciplinary proceedings could be continued as per Clause 6.21.1 of SIPCOT Service Rules. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit in both cases reiterating his stand. 7. Heard both sides. 8. I am not going into the details of the charges made in the charge memos as the same is not relevant for the purpose of the case. 9. Both the petitioner as well as the respondents rely on Clause 6.21.1 of the SIPCOT Service Rules in support of their plea. 10. The Board of Directors of SIPCOT framed the rules and regulations to define and regulate the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. The rules and regulations are known as "THE SERVICE RULES OF THE STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LIMITED". The Service Rules of SIPCOT contains various chapters. 11. Chapter VI deals with Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. We are concerned with Clause 6.21.1. Clause 6.21.1. of Service Rules of SIPCOT is extracted hereunder:- "6.21.1 Extending the services beyond the date of superannuation 6.21.1(i) The competent authority can retain an employee beyond the date of retirement if the individual is on suspension due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and the Disciplinary Authority is of the view that it will result in awarding major punishment of either dismissal or removal from service. 6.21.1(ii) In all other cases, the individuals may be allowed to retire on the date of retirement without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against them. 6.21.1(iii) The individuals who are retained in service, beyond the date of retirement, for the purpose of disciplinary action and placed under suspension shall be paid subsistence allowance at the rates as provided in the Service Rules of SIPCOT till the completion of disciplinary proceedings or for a period of six months whichever occurs earlier. 6.21.1(iv) The individual will not be eligible to claim any other benefits during such suspension period. The disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within a period of six months positively." 12. In Ground No.(i) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in fact the petitioner has also extracted Clause 6.21.1. It is not disputed that Service Rules of the SIPCOT governs the conditions of service of the petitioner. 13. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there is no provision in the SIPCOT Service Rules to continue the disciplinary proceedings after permitting the petitioner to retire from service. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Clause 3.11 of the Service Rules of SIPCOT. According to Clause 3.11, every employee retires on reaching the age of 58 years, except the employees belonging to Basic categories, who shall retire at the age of 60 years. Once an employee is retired, the respondents lack jurisdiction to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Clause 3.11 may be usefully extracted here under:- "3.11 Superannuation and Retirement 1) Every employee of the Corporation other than those in the Basic categories viz., Office Assistant, Watchman, Mazdoor, Scavenger, Sweeper-cum-Scavenger shall retire when he completes the age of 58 years. Every employee in the Basic categories shall retire when he completes the age of 60 years. The date of retirement of the employee shall take effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation. 2) However, an employee who has attained the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service shall be liable to be compulsorily retired, if he is found to be inefficient or incapable of discharging his duties for reasons of ill health or found lacking in integrity. Any employee who has been compulsorily retired will be entitled to three month's notice salary in lieu thereof. Any employee who has been compulsorily retired will be entitled to three month's notice salary in lieu thereof. 2-a) ...." 15. According to the petitioner, once the petitioner had retired from service, the respondents have no power to continue with the disciplinary proceedings that was initiated prior to his retirement. 16. The following judgments are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions:- i) Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others [ AIR 1999 SC 1841 ] ii) N.Kunnai Gowder v. Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., Pachapalayam, Rep. By its Managing Director [ (2008) 1 MLJ 119 ] iii) P.Thangavel v. Chairman, Common Cadre Committee/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal [ (2012) 3 MLJ 913 ] 17. In my view, the contention of the petitioner, in the face of Clause 6.21.1 (i) cannot be accepted or countenanced. It is a different matter if Clause 6.21.1(i) is not in the Service Rules of SIPCOT. In fact Clause 6.21.1 was later brought into Service Rules and the same was not available when Service Rules were originally framed. However, it came into existence before the retirement of the petitioner and the applicability of the same is not disputed. However, the petitioner relies on Clause 3.11 and contended that the impugned charge memos are without jurisdiction. Clause 3.11 shall be read along with Clause 6.21.1 of the SIPCOT Service Rules. 18. The decisions relied on by the petitioner are dealt with hereunder:- In the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1841 (Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others), learned counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraphs 5 and 6, which may be extracted hereunder:- "5. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. 6. In view of the absence of such provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.06.95, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 19. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court found that there was no provision made in the Staff Regulations for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. Such a finding is found in paragraph 5 of the judgment. 20. On the other hand, I have already held that Clause 6.21.1. of the Service Rules of SIPCOT provides for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. Hence, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 21. The judgment reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 119 , [N.Kunnai Gowder v. Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., Pachapalayam, Rep. By its Managing Director], relates to an employee who was working in Coimbatore District Cooperative Milk Producers Union. The appellant therein questioned the charge memo dated 26.09.1997 issued against him. He retired from service on 09.01.1998. He came to this Court questioning the charge memo on the ground that there is no provision in the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act to continue disciplinary proceedings after superannuation. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He filed writ appeal. The writ appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena's case (cited supra). 22. In Paragraph 6, this Court has observed as follows:- "6. A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer, the employee cannot be made to retire. In the instant case, no rule has been brought to our notice providing for continuation of such proceeding despite permitting the employee concerned to retire. A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer, the employee cannot be made to retire. In the instant case, no rule has been brought to our notice providing for continuation of such proceeding despite permitting the employee concerned to retire. There has to be a specific provision of law or regulation or a by-law governing the service conditions of the person in question for continuing a departmental enquiry, initiated before the date of superannuation, even after the employee had retired from service. Without such a provision being available, there cannot be an employer-employee relationship surviving after the employee retires from service. Therefore, continuing the enquiry proceedings or conducting an action against the person after his retirement from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law." 23. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, this Court has categorically held that no rules was brought to their notice providing for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after permitting the employee to retire from service. As stated above, in the case on hand, Rule 6.21.1 is available for continuing the enquiry after retirement. 24. P.Thangavel v. Chairman, Common Cadre Committee/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal [ (2012) 3 MLJ 913 ]:- The said case was filed questioning the order of the Chairman in Common Cadre Committee/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the consequential charge memo issued to the appellant therein. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge. On appeal, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal following the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena's case (cited supra). 25. In fact all the aforesaid judgments cited by the petitioner support the case of the respondents. In view of the existence of Clause 6.21.1 of the Service Rules of SIPCOT, respondents have power and jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after superannuation. In the absence of Clause 6.21.1, the petitioner could be correct in his submissions. After amending the Rules and bringing Clause 6.21.1 in between 6.21 and 6.22, the respondents have power to proceed with the departmental enquiry after retirement. 26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.