JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 21.10.2014 and consequently, seeks for a direction to the first respondent to approve the proposals submitted by the second respondent for disbursing the terminal benefits. 2. Through the impugned order, the first respondent returned the proposals sent by the second respondent seeking for terminal benefits to the petitioner on the reason that the criminal case in crime No.758 of 2013 is pending before the Rajapalayam North Police Station against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher and after rendering 34 years of service, retired on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 08.08.2014, the second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent for disbursement of pensionary and other terminal benefits. However, such proposals was returned by passing the impugned order as stated supra. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner served with the second respondent for more than 34 years as Secondary Grade Teacher without any blemish and he was permitted to retire on 31.01.2015 and that the alleged occurrence in crime No.758 of 2013 was out side the scope of employment. 5. It appears that the said criminal case was filed against the petitioner in respect of an alleged chit transaction between some private parties and the so called allegation made against the petitioner has got nothing to do with the service rendered by him as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the criminal case filed against the petitioner has got nothing to do with the employment of the petitioner and there is no other disciplinary proceedings has been initiated or pending against the petitioner departmentally so far. 7. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the terminal benefits cannot be stalled by the first respondent, merely because an FIR has been filed against the petitioner, wherein the allegation made against him is totally unconnected with his employment and nothing to do with his service as Secondary Grade Teacher . Therefore, the first respondent should consider the proposals sent by the second respondent without reference to the FIR pending against the petitioner as stated in the impugned communication. 8. Therefore, the first respondent should consider the proposals sent by the second respondent without reference to the FIR pending against the petitioner as stated in the impugned communication. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the proposals sent by the second respondent and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.