JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Kumarapalayam Municipality. While he was working as Junior Engineer in Salem City Corporation, he is said to have committed certain irregularities. For those irregularities, a charge memorandum dated 28.06.2010 was issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent under Rule 8(2) of The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1970. 2. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued an order dated 29.06.2010 permitting the petitioner to retire from service on 30.06.2010, when he reached the age of superannuation. 3. The petitioner has now come up with this writ petition seeking to quash the charge memorandum dated 28.06.2010 on the ground that since he was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, no disciplinary proceeding can thereafter be maintained against him under Rule 8(2) of The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules. 4. There has been no counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 5. I have heard Mr. M.Ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.Dig Vijay Pandian, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent; and Mr. S.Mutharasu, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was allowed to retire from service, no disciplinary proceeding can thereafter be maintained under The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules and hence, the charge memorandum under Rule 8(2) of The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the 1st respondent could proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and, therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance at all. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the records carefully. 9. Since the petitioner was allowed to retire by an order dated 29.06.2010, the 1st respondent cannot proceed further under The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, and at the most, he can proceed only under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It is a different matter if the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service and in that case, the 1st respondent can very well proceed under The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules. It is a different matter if the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service and in that case, the 1st respondent can very well proceed under The Tamil Nadu Municipal Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to quash the charges, but at the same time, I am inclined to give suitable directions to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is accordingly directed to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of charges under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and to complete the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.