Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order, letter No.17929/AH1/2007-3, dated 28.2.2008 issuing charge memo to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner while working as Joint Director of Animal Husbandary department, has invited tender for the purchase of fixograph magnetic boards. The petitioner accepted the lowest tender and forwarded it to the Director of Animal Husbandary hospital, who accepted the recommendation of the petitioner. 3. On the placement of order, the magnetic boards were installed and the payment was also released to the supplier. 4. The case of the petitioner is that two years after the completion of work, the respondents called for fresh tender in respect of the work which stood completed in 2006 only to verify whether tender accepted by the petitioner was correct or not. After scrutiny, the petitioner was issued charge memo, alleging misconduct in getting fixograph magnetic boards at higher cost than the market value. 5 Under the normal circumstances, the petitioner should have submitted reply to the charge memo, but he chose to file the present writ petition. 5. This Court stayed further proceedings and during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has retired from service. 6. The respondents while releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner on his retirement, have withheld a sum of Rs.7,952/-(Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and fifty two only) said to be the excess amount paid to the supplier for supply of fixograph magnetic boards. 7. This action of the respondents on the face of it contrary to law, as admittedly, no finding had been recorded about the guilt of the petitioner, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to withhold the amount. 8. There is also no necessity to go into details of the controversy at this stage, as admittedly, after retirement of the petitioner, it is not open to the respondents to continue with the departmental enquiry in absence of retaining him in service by placing him under suspension. 9. Therefore, the writ petition as framed is rendered in fructuous. 10. Keeping in view of the fact that there is no finding against the petitioner by the competent authority, holding him guilty nor there is any order imposing punishment. 9. Therefore, the writ petition as framed is rendered in fructuous. 10. Keeping in view of the fact that there is no finding against the petitioner by the competent authority, holding him guilty nor there is any order imposing punishment. Therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding Rs.7952/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and fifty two only) out of the retiral benefits and not accepting the request for commutation of pension, cannot be sustained in law. 11. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition as having rendered infructuous, the second respondent is directed to release the withheld amount of Rs.7952/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and fifty two only) and also consider the request of the petitioner for commutation of pension in accordance with pension rules. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.