Order In W.P(MD)No.17921 of 2013, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order of suspension, issuance of charge memo and an order not allowing the petitioner to retire. 2. In W.P(MD)No.17922 of 2013, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order of suspension and issuance of charge memo. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17921 of 2013 is as follows:- The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17921 of 2013 was functioning Sub-Registrar Grade-I and was placed under suspension on 23.04.2012 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings issued against the petitioner is pending. On the very same day, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo. Consequently, on 24.05.2013 an order was issued not allowing the petitioner to retire from service. All these proceedings are impugned in this writ petition. 5. The case of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17922 of 2013 is as follows:- He was functioning as Sub-Registrar Grade-I and was placed under suspension on 24.05.2013 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is pending. 6. In both the case, though the petitioners have challenged the order of suspension and the charge memo as well as the order not permitting them to retire from service, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and contentions raised by the petitioners in respect of the charges levelled against them, since it is for the authorities to conduct an enquiry and find out as to whether the charge levelled against the petitioners are proved or not. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even though the suspension order and charge memo were issued to the respective petitioners, till this date, the respondent department has not conducted the enquiry and passed final order which causes great inconvenience to the petitioners and they are not in a position to get their retirement benefits even though they have reached the age of superannuation already. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that a time frame may be fixed for conducting enquiry and passing the final order. He further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioners cannot be sustained in view of the various decisions rendered by this Court on merits. Needless to say that it is for the petitioners to canvass those points and convince the authorities at the time of enquiry. He further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioners cannot be sustained in view of the various decisions rendered by this Court on merits. Needless to say that it is for the petitioners to canvass those points and convince the authorities at the time of enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not, at present, inclined to go in to the merits of the charges. 8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of only with a direction to the first respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioners should co-operate with the enquiry, so that the enquiry could be conducted and final orders could be passed within the time stipulated supra. If the petitioners are not issued with any subsistence allowance so far, the respondents are duty bound to pay the same without any further delay. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.