JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order not permitting the petitioner to retire on attaining age of superannuation without prejudice to the charges framed against him and the charge memo dated 26.06.2008. 2. The petitioner herein was issued with the impugned charge memo along with another person, who is the petitioner in W.P (MD) No.8820 of 2014. The charge leveled against the petitioner and the said person is common. Insofar as the said charge leveled against the other person, who is petitioner in W.P (MD) No.8820 of 2014, this Court has found that the said charge cannot be sustained on merits by observing at paragraph No.14 as follows: “14. Even on merits it appears that the charge leveled against the petitioner cannot be sustained for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that the petitioner was only an Issuing Authority to issue the transit passes. Therefore, if the goods were moved without transit passes or with false transit passes, as if the goods were moved from Tamil Nadu to Pandicherry, then, the Assessing Authority ought to have proceeded against the registered dealer by issuing show-cause notice and making an order of assessment accordingly by considering said movement of goods as deemed sales within the State of Tamil Nadu. But in this case, it appears that no such proceedings have been initiated by the Assessing Authority and on the other hand, the Assessing Authority accepted the transit passes issued along with other documents including declaration form to the effect that the transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. Such assessment order passed in respect of the relevant period appears to have become final and conclusive, as no appeal or revision is said to have been filed by the department. Therefore, the charge leveled against the petitioner cannot be sustained even on merits. This aspect has not been considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the final order of punishment. Further the charge memo impugned in this writ petition came to be issued on 01.07.2008 in respect of the alleged delinquency, said to have been taken place in the year 2004-2005, that too, after allowing the petitioner to retire on 31.05.2006. This aspect has not been considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the final order of punishment. Further the charge memo impugned in this writ petition came to be issued on 01.07.2008 in respect of the alleged delinquency, said to have been taken place in the year 2004-2005, that too, after allowing the petitioner to retire on 31.05.2006. The above events would show that there is unreasonable delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which in my considered view has not been properly explained.” In this case also the charge memo is issued to the petitioner on 26.06.2008 for the alleged delinquency said to have taken place in the year 2004-2005. 3. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned charge leveled against the petitioner having been found in other writ petition in W.P (MD) No.8820 of 2014 as not sustainable, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition as well. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.