Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1143 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.12627 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was working as a Sub-Registrar at Bhavani at the relevant time. A charge memo, dated 09.11.1990 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules for certain allegations. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.1990. He was permitted to retire without prejudice to the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings as the same could be continued under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978. 3. Since no final order was passed even after a decade after his retirement, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4496 of 2000, seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to pass final orders on the enquiry report relating to the charge memo dated 09.11.1990 within a stipulated period. 4. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on 26.11.2001 directing the respondents therein to pass final order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the entire disciplinary proceedings shall be quashed. In this context, paragraph 4 of the order dated 26.11.2001 is extracted hereunder:- “4. Therefore, the order is passed directing the respondents to pass final orders within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the entire disciplinary proceedings shall be and quashed.” 5. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was over long back and the Enquiry Officer also gave his report long back and therefore, there was no reason in not passing final order. 6. While so, the respondent herein passed G.O.(2D)No.132, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 18.12.2002 imposing the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.81,020.80. The impugned order states that Rs.30,000/- could be adjusted from DCRG and the rest of the amount could be recovered from the petitioner's pension at Rs.500/- per month for 102 months. The petitioner has filed this Original Application to quash the aforesaid Government Order dated 18.12.2002. 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed, as the same is contrary to the order dated 26.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.4496 of 2000. 8. The petitioner has filed this Original Application to quash the aforesaid Government Order dated 18.12.2002. 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed, as the same is contrary to the order dated 26.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.4496 of 2000. 8. A reply affidavit was filed by the respondent, wherein, it is stated in Paragraph 5 that the copy of the order dated 26.11.2001 was received by the respondent on 04.01.2002. 9. But, the respondent chose to pass the impugned Government Order only on 18.12.2002. The respondent neither passed an order within a period of one month norchallenged the order dated 26.11.2001 made in O.A.No.4496 of 2000, imposinga condition that disciplinary proceeding would get quashed, if final order is not passed within a period of one month. 10. I have perused the order dated 26.11.2001 in O.A.No.4496 of 2000. The Tribunal held that though the alleged incident is said to have taken place during 1986-87, charge memo was issued to him just a few days prior to his retirement. In this case, the petitioner was to retire on 30.11.1990 and charge memo was issued on 09.11.1990. However, he was permitted to retire on 30.11.1990 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. But, even after 10 years, no final order was passed. Therefore, he was not able to get his terminal benefits. In those circumstances, such an extraordinary order was passed. 11. In fact, the impugned Government Order itself states as under: "TAMIL" 12. As per the above said extract of the impugned order, the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his views were sought thereon in the proceedings dated 20.08.1993. The petitioner submitted his remarks on the enquiry report as early as on 28.09.1993. There was no reason for the respondent in not passing final order thereon for the past 9 years. 13. But, it is stated in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit that the petitioner did not give his views on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The said averment in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit is, therefore, not correct. The relevant passage in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit is extracted in this regard:- "3. ....It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer has submitted his findings stating that the applicant is held responsible for the loss of Revenue to Government to the tune of Rs.81,020.80. The said averment in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit is, therefore, not correct. The relevant passage in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit is extracted in this regard:- "3. ....It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer has submitted his findings stating that the applicant is held responsible for the loss of Revenue to Government to the tune of Rs.81,020.80. The copy of the Inquiry Report was communicated to the applicant to offer his further representation if any. But the applicant has not submitted his further representation on the Inquiry Report..." 14. In view of the order dated 26.11.2001 made in O.A.No.4496 of 2000 and also taking into account the fact that the respondent has not come with clean hands, more particularly, with reference to paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.