Judgment 1. The petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cuddalore Region in Rc.No.2200/2011 E dated 28.6.2011, in and by which the petitioner Mr. N. Ramalingam, Co-operative Sub Registrar (Public Distribution System), Annagramam, was placed under suspension under sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules until further orders, on the ground that a complaint against him of criminal offence is contemplated relating to certain irregularities of Neyveli Cooperative Housing Society while he was working as Cooperative Sub Registrar/Supervisor, Neyveli Cooperative Housing Society. By the consequential order of even reference dated 30.6.2011, the petitioner was not permitted to retire on his reaching the age of superannuation viz., 30.6.2011 and he was retained in service under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). Challenging both these orders, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The only contention placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that even before the petitioner was issued with the impugned orders, he was subjected to departmental proceedings on a charge that he had issued discharge certificates to ten borrowers as if they had discharged the loans, as a result, he caused loss of Rs.81,902/-. However, the enquiry officer, after going through the explanation offered by the petitioner and the documents produced by the department, reached a conclusion that the petitioner had not committed any irregularity and finally the enquiry officer found him not guilty. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, taking into account the past clean service maintained by the petitioner, again keeping in view that the petitioner had refunded a sum of Rs.81,902/-by making good the alleged loss, simply imposed a punishment of 'Censure' and discharged the petitioner. Therefore, the question of registering a criminal complaint against the petitioner cannot arise. Adding further, he has stated that although the impugned order dated 28.6.2011 alleges that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in view of contemplation of criminal complaint relating to certain irregularities of Neyveli Cooperative Housing Society while he was working as Cooperative Sub Registrar/Supervisor, Neyveli Cooperative Housing Society, even till date, there is no criminal complaint made or registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.6.2011 placing him under suspension will not stand to any legal scrutiny. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.6.2011 placing him under suspension will not stand to any legal scrutiny. Secondly, one another consequential order dated 30.6.2011, retaining the petitioner in service and not permitting him to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on the evening of 30.6.2011 until the criminal case is concluded and final order passed thereon by the competent authority, also cannot stand to any good reason, since no criminal complaint was ever filed. He also submitted that even in the counter affidavit, the respondent has not whispered whether any criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioner and no information whatsoever has been furnished. Therefore, the petitioner against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, finally faced with the lighter punishment of 'Censure' at the hands of the disciplinary authority, the department cannot even retain the petitioner for the purpose of putting him again for any disciplinary proceedings. On this basis, he prayed for quashing of the impugned orders. 3. Although the learned Government Advocate for the respondent contended that since some more particulars have been sought for by the Superintendent of Police, Commercial Criminal Investigation Wing, Anna Nagar, Chennai by the communication dated 27.6.2014, it has to be construed that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, this Court is unable to find any justification whatsoever in the said submission. The reason is that the petitioner, for the alleged irregularities said to have taken place at his instance, faced a departmental proceeding initiated by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer, in his final report dated 23.6.2011, also absolved the petitioner of the charge and found him not guilty. However, when the report reached the table of disciplinary authority, the said authority, after taking into account the past service of the petitioner which reflected no adverse report, by considering the fact that the petitioner had refunded even the alleged amount of Rs.81,902/-, came to the conclusion that there was no loss, on this basis, he discharged the petitioner by again imposing a lighter punishment of 'Censure'. In that view of the matter, when there is no criminal complaint, till date, filed and registered against the petitioner, the very basis and the foundation on which the order of suspension dated 28.6.2011 passed under sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules is liable to be set aside. In that view of the matter, when there is no criminal complaint, till date, filed and registered against the petitioner, the very basis and the foundation on which the order of suspension dated 28.6.2011 passed under sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules is liable to be set aside. Secondly, the subsequent order dated 30.6.2011 retaining the petitioner in service on the ground that he would be retained in service until the criminal case is concluded and final order is passed thereon, is also liable to go, because there is no criminal case pending as on date against the petitioner. 4. For the reasons mentioned above, in the facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Needless to mention that the respondent is directed to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. No costs.