ORDER D. Hari Paranthaman, J. 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Attender on 22.09.1975 in the third respondent Co-operative Society. He was promoted as Secretary (In charge) on 01.02.2007. While so, he was placed under suspension on 21.11.2012. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 22.04.2013 was also issued. Before the conclusion of the enquiry on the said charge memo, he reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. In these circumstances, he filed W.P.(MD) No. 2289 of 2015, challenging the charge memo on the ground that the third respondent Society has no jurisdiction to continue the departmental proceedings after the retirement. This Court, on 23.02.2015, directed the third respondent to maintain status-quo. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No. 20098 of 2015 seeking for direction to disburse gratuity under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, based on his representation dated 25.09.2015 and the order dated 27.04.2015 in W.P.(MD) No. 10007 of 2015. Since the matter is relating to non payment of gratuity and earn leave encashment on the retirement of petitioner, while he rendered 38 years of service, this Court ordered notice to the third respondent through Court and privately on 17.11.2015. Pursuant to the said notice, the third respondent is represented by an Advocate. 3. Counter is also filed in W.P.(MD) No. 2289 of 2015 by the third respondent Cooperative Society stating that the petitioner was not relieved from the service of the Society on 30.06.2013, on reaching the age of superannuation, without prejudice to the pending disciplinary action against the petitioner. 4. As the matter is covered by the Full Judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (4) CTC 1 - S. Andiyannan v. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madurai, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard both sides. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued against an employee of the Co-operative Society in the absence of service rules enabling the disciplinary authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after retirement. It is useful to extract para 30 of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench. "30. It is useful to extract para 30 of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench. "30. Answer to the First Question referred to this Bench: Under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, once an Employee retired from service, there could be no authority vested with the Employer for continuing any Disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of relevant Service Rules permitting the Employer to continue the Disciplinary proceeding. In other words, if there is no Service Rules or Bye-law of the society empowering the Employer to continue the Department proceeding, the Employer, would have no authority to continue the Departmental proceeding after the retirement of the employee." 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent has not stated that the Bye-laws of the Cooperative Society empower the third respondent to continue the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement. 8. In these circumstances, in view of the Full Bench judgment, the third respondent Co-operative Society cannot retain its employee without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceeding against such persons in the absence of the Bye-laws or any statutory provisions. Therefore, the impugned order of the third respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 2289 of 2012 is liable to be quashed. 9. As far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is squarely covered by a decision dated 27.04.2015 in W.P.(MD) No. 10007 of 2015 and the said judgment is followed in the order dated 30.11.2015 in W.P.(MD) No. 21305 of 2015. It is useful to extract para 11 of the said order. "11. In yet another decision in A. Kannan v. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Villupuram District (W.P. No. 10007 of 2015) the relevant paragraphs of the said order is as under- "9. In my view, non payment of gratuity to a workman who is not in pension able service is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is well settled that for enforcement of fundamental rights a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable. Reference could be had to the case reported in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Other, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . Hence the plea raised by the 2nd respondent that workman shall approach the authority under Payment of Gratuity Act under the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishment Act is rejected. 10. Reference could be had to the case reported in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Other, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . Hence the plea raised by the 2nd respondent that workman shall approach the authority under Payment of Gratuity Act under the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishment Act is rejected. 10. The other plea is that I passed an order dated 07.04.2015 in W.P. No. 9976/2015 directing the petitioner therein to approach the appropriate authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, when there was a claim made by the workman for interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits. In my view, the said judgment cannot be of any use to the 2nd respondent. Even surcharge proceeding or any criminal proceeding is pending against the employee of the cooperative society, the same cannot be a ground to deprive gratuity in view of section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Unless the workman is dismissed and there is an order of forfeiture of gratuity passed under Payment of Gratuity Act, the payment of gratuity cannot be taken away by the employer. Even here, if the petitioner was paid the gratuity amount and the petitioner seeks for interest, I could have directed him to approach the concerned authority relating to payment of interest. In this case after retirement, no amount is paid to workmen. Workmen is entitled only to gratuity, provident fund and earn leave encasement. None of the amounts are paid to the workmen. Now, the 2nd respondent cannot take a technical plea of non maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Hence, writ petition is allowed, a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to pay gratuity and leave encashment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 10. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity as well as Provident Fund, as per Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and also earn leave encashment benefit, which are entitled to. 11. Accordingly, "(i) W.P.(MD) No. 2289 of 2015 is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the third respondent is quashed. (ii) W.P.(MD) No. 20098 of 2015 is allowed. 11. Accordingly, "(i) W.P.(MD) No. 2289 of 2015 is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the third respondent is quashed. (ii) W.P.(MD) No. 20098 of 2015 is allowed. A direction is issued to the third respondent to settle the gratuity, provident fund and earn leave encashment benefit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.