Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension passed against the petitioner, dated 31.05.2014. 2. The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk at the 3rd respondent Society and was placed under suspension on 31.05.2014, being the date of his superannuation. Such suspension order came to be passed on the reason that surcharge proceedings are pending against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that already disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the very same cause of action by issuing charge memo on 14.06.2013 and in pursuant to the enquiry report dated 15.03.2014, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment on 16.05.2014, viz., stoppage of yearly increment for a period of three months. Thus he submitted that the surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner therefore is in respect of the same cause of action, which cannot be permitted, as it would amount to double jeopardy. 4. Mr.S.Kumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that two surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended in passing final orders on 31.05.2014 and 16.05.2014 and the petitioner has already approached the appellate authority challenging those proceedings and the same is pending. Therefore, he fairly submitted that there is no necessity to continue the order of suspension against the petitioner. Thus, he submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this writ petition, taking note of the above stated facts and circumstances. He further submitted that in so far as the prayer seeking for retirement benefits is concerned, the same will be considered after the order passed in the appeal filed against the surcharge proceedings. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 31.05.2014. The petitioner further prayed for disbursement of all retirement benefits. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, the impugned suspension order has been passed during pendency of the surcharge proceedings and when the petitioner has also challenged the final order made in those surcharge proceedings before the appellate authority, I am of the view that there is no necessity to continue the suspension any more. Since the petitioner is not challenging the penalty imposed on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by issuing charge memo dated 14.06.2013, I do not think that there is any further need to continue the suspension. Accordingly, the impugned order of suspension is set aside. In so far as the other limb of prayer seeking for retirement benefits is concerned, I am of the view that such a request is to be considered after the order is passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, this Court at this stage is not expressing any view on that aspect. 7. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders allowing the petitioner to retire however without prejudice to the final orders to be passed in the appeal challenging the surcharge proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.