Judgment 1. Mr.M.Muniyasamy, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 02.08.2014 whereby his request for reinstating him into service as Supervisor of Tasmac Shop was rejected. It is seen that the petitioner was placed suspension on 26.10.2013 based on an allegation that a shortage of Rs.55,49,920/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Nine Hundred Twenty Only) was noticed at the time of inspection of the accounts of a particular TASMAC Shop. The petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9209 of 2014 seeking for a Mandamus directing him to reinstate him based on his representation. This Court by order dated 11.06.2014 directed the third respondent to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is going on and therefore, at this stage, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. 4. Considering the serious allegation made against the petitioner and considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated and the same is going on, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, as the petitioner was placed on suspension as early as 26.10.2013, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.