Judgment 1. Mr.M.Muniyasamay, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 02.08.2014, in Na.Ka.No.V2/1006/2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Salesman TASMAC Shop No.7553 with all attendant benefits. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 02.08.2014, whereby the petitioner's request for reinstatement in service was rejected on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. 5. It is seen, that the petitioner who was working as Salesman in the respondent's Corporation was relieved on 26.10.2013 based on the allegations that there was a shortage of cash of Rs.55,49,920/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Nine Hundred Twenty Only) The charge memo was also issued on the very same day to the petitioner. 6. It is further seen that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P(MD)No.9209 of 2014 seeking a directing for reinstatement of service, and in that writ petition, an order came to be passed on 11.06.2014, directing the third respondent herein 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. 7. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in an identical circumstance in W.P.(MD)No.9213 of 2014, dated 11.06.2014, this Court directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner seeking for reinstatement and pass suitable orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 8. Considering the fact that the serious charges of shortage of huge amount is levelled against the petitioner and considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him, in pursuance of such charge memo, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Considering the fact that the serious charges of shortage of huge amount is levelled against the petitioner and considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him, in pursuance of such charge memo, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, as this Court has already directed the authorities in respect of a co-delinquent, 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 that order. Hence, this writ petition is also disposed of only with a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.