Judgment : 1. The first petitioner's husband and the father of the 2nd petitioner viz., Late Chandran entered the service as Village Administrative Officer in the year 1984. 2. The first petitioner's husband viz., Chandran was proceeded with departmentally under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules by the District Collector, Nilgiris District by issuing charge memo on 29.03.2000. The allegation made in the charge memo is that the first petitioner's husband Chandran issued bogus certificate and based on the said certificate, certain benefits were claimed by some persons and the same resulted in loss of Rs.22,500/-to the Government. It is relevant to note that 9 other Village Administrative Officers like Chandran were also issued with similar charge memos during that time. 3. All those Village Administrative Officers including S.Chandran remitted 50% of the amount of loss and a direction was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer that on such remittance, charges would be dropped. The Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority. Hence, though amounts were remitted, disciplinary proceedings continued. In fact, it seems that a direction was issued by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration vide proceedings dated 08.09.1997 to remit 50% of the loss caused to the Government and the same found place in the impugned order. But the aforesaid order dated 08.09.1997 does not state that the disciplinary proceedings would be dropped. But the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a letter dated 10.01.2001 directing the Village Administrative Officers, who were facing the charges to remit 50% of the loss caused to the Government and on such remittance, charges would be dropped. 4. The Enquiry Officer gave a report dated 25.01.2002 that charges made against the petitioner was proved. In the mean time, S.Chandran suffered due to paralysis and based on the report of the Medical Board, the competent authority viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur issued an order dated 26.05.2004 retiring him compulsorily under Rule 56(2) of the Fundamental Rules. 5. Based on the compulsory retirement order referred to above, proposals were sent to the office of the Accountant General for authorisation of pension and other terminal benefits. Based on such proposals, the Principal Accountant General issued an order dated 02.05.2005 sanctioning pension. Though pension was authorised as stated above, pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits were not paid. 5. Based on the compulsory retirement order referred to above, proposals were sent to the office of the Accountant General for authorisation of pension and other terminal benefits. Based on such proposals, the Principal Accountant General issued an order dated 02.05.2005 sanctioning pension. Though pension was authorised as stated above, pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits were not paid. Without noticing the aforesaid developments, namely, passing of the compulsory retirement and the subsequent sanction of pension, in the mean time, the District Collector, Nilgiris District passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2005 dismissing the first petitioner's husband from service. 6. The first petitioner's husband S.Chandran died on 14.01.2007. In these circumstances, the legal heirs of the said S.Chandran have filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2005 on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. 7. The contention of the petitioners is that the dismissal order of the 8 other Village Administrative Officers, who were also issued with similar dismissal orders were set aside by this Court and a direction was issued to pay backwages and other benefits to those Village Administrative Officers. It is also stated that the said order was complied with, without preferring appeal and those persons were reinstated with backwages. 8. However, in the case of one person by name C.J.Mary, the dismissal order was upheld by a learned single Judge of this Court and writ appeal is preferred by the said person and it is stated that the same is pending before this Court. 9. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit. However, with the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal in the afore said facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Additional Government Pleader made his submissions based on the instructions. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by an order dated 26.05.2004 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur under FR 56(2). The said order is enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is not the case of the learned Additional Government Pleader that Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to pass the order of Compulsory Retirement invoking FR 56(2). The said order is enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is not the case of the learned Additional Government Pleader that Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to pass the order of Compulsory Retirement invoking FR 56(2). In fact, since it was a valid order retiring S.Chandran voluntarily from service, pension proposals were sent by the Department and the same was sanctioned by the Principal Accountant General vide proceedings dated 02.05.2005. 12. Once a person is compulsorily retired from service under FR 56(2), I am of the view that the disciplinary proceedings pending against him would abate for the simple reason that there is no employer employee relationship subsists after compulsory retirement. 13. In view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the concerned authority could have refused to invoke FR 56(2). In that event, he can be imposed with the punishment, including the punishment of dismissal based on the disciplinary proceedings. But long back, before the passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2005, S.Chandran was compulsorily retired from service. Hence, I am of the view that impugned order is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be interfered with. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed an order dated 01.07.2011 in W.P.Nos.15979 of 2007 and etc. batch, interfering with the order of punishment imposed on 4 Village Administrative Officers. It is stated that four others also had the similar benefit. In the said case, relating to the charges, in paragraphs 10 and 12 held as follows :- "10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a crucial issue about the procedure followed in the enquiry. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to the report of the Enquiry Officer. A reference to the report of the Enquiry Officer shows that in respect of each and every one of the charges the Enquiry Officer has gone into the evidence by himself as per the files and has come to be a conclusion that predominantly the death certificates which are available on the files are suspicious in nature. It is further relevant to note that except his own reference to the files, there is no other evidence except the statements which have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer from the petitioners, who are the delinquents. It is further relevant to note that except his own reference to the files, there is no other evidence except the statements which have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer from the petitioners, who are the delinquents. This is evident from the following statement in the report of the Enquiry Officer: “TAMIL” Therefore, it is clear that the report of the Enquiry Officer has been given purely based on the charge memo, explanation submitted by the delinquents and the statements given by the delinquents before the Enquiry Officer on 15.6.2001. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the department to substantiate each and everyone of the case with proper witnesses so as to enable the delinquents to cross-examine them. Certainly, the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is totally alien to the principles of disciplinary proceeding and the procedure to be followed. It is trite law that in the departmental proceedings when the charges are framed, explanation is submitted and Enquiry Officer is appointed, then the department has to let in evidence at the first instance and prove the charges through evidence and records and such witness must be placed for cross-examination by the delinquent and it is only thereafter by appreciation of evidence in the light of the documents the Enquiry Officer can come to a conclusion about the delinquency while giving a report. 12. On a reference to the impugned order of the first respondent, who is the original authority, it is clear that he has in detail explained whatever is available on record and files to come to a conclusion that he is satisfied about the delinquency on the part of the petitioners. However, the first respondent has failed to note that except that the Enquiry Officer after referring to the files has come to a conclusion that bogus death certificates have been produced, which may be even correct on fact, there is no other consideration by the first respondent as to whether the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in a proper manner at all. The relevant portion of the order of the first respondent which is as follows: “TAMIL” shows that 50% of the loss caused to the Government has been admittedly deposited by the petitioners and charges levelled against them have been proved and therefore, the petitioners are dismissed from service. The relevant portion of the order of the first respondent which is as follows: “TAMIL” shows that 50% of the loss caused to the Government has been admittedly deposited by the petitioners and charges levelled against them have been proved and therefore, the petitioners are dismissed from service. Apart from the fact that the procedure contemplated for the purpose of disciplinary proceeding has not been followed, the first respondent, in the impugned order while ordering the dismissal, has totally failed to consider the correctness of the disciplinary proceeding conducted by the Enquiry Officer." 15. Based on the aforesaid conclusion, the learned judge has held as follows:- "For the reasons that enquiry has not been conducted in the manner known to law and the delay in disciplinary proceeding has not been properly explained and taking note of the fact that even as per the direction of the second respondent 50% of the amount has already been deposited by the petitioners, I am of the view that remitting of the matter for the purpose of following the procedure contemplated under law will not subserve any purpose and therefore, the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned orders stand set aside. No costs." 16. In my view, S.Chandran is also similarly situated like that of the petitioners therein. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to question the impugned order on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction, in view of compulsory retirement order. In my view, the said submission has some force. 17. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since S.Chandran died in the year 2007, a direction is issued to sanction the family pension to the Widow, the first petitioner herein. The concerned respondent is directed to send proposals for family pension to the first petitioner herein, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Principal Accountant General shall authorise the same since already the deceased was sanctioned pension, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The first respondent shall ensure that the family pension with arrears, pension arrears upto the death of the Government servant, DCRG and other terminal benefits shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of authorisation of terminal benefits by the Principal Accountant General. It is made clear that the amount that was remitted cannot be claimed by the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.