JUDGMENT : (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Challenge in this appeal is to an order, made in W.P.(MD)No.17561 of 2015, dated 29.09.2015, by which, a learned single Judge has directed the Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, 1st appellant, to pass final orders, on the charge memo, in Na.Ka.No.29948/2004/F 1-2, dated 30.06.2004. 2. Material on record discloses that when the respondent was working in Dindigul Municipality, he was issued with a Charge memo, dated 30.08.2004, for certain irregularities, alleging that he has caused loss to the Dindigul Municipality. Reading of G.O.(D)No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.04.2006, indicates that the respondent has been transferred from Dindigul Municipality and posted at Karur Municipality. By the abovesaid Government Order, the Government have placed the respondent under suspension. 3. Lateron, G.O.(D)No.174, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME2) Department, dated 31.05.2006, has been issued, not permitting the petitioner to retire from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006. After the said order, another disciplinary proceedings have been issued in Rc.No.54473/04/J3, dated 10.05.2007, by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, 2nd appellant herein, for some other allegations. There is yet another charge memo, in Rc.no.59640/2007/OP3-1, dated 11.06.2008, issued by the 2nd appellant. 4. Contending inter alia that though the enquiry into the charge memo, dated 30.06.2004, had already been completed and that a report, dated 07.12.2006, has also been made, for which, the respondent has also submitted his further representation to the said enquiry report and further contenting inter alia that no orders have been passed, despite the same, the respondent has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the appellants to pass final orders in Rc.No.29948/2004/F 1-2, dated 30.08.2004, issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, 2nd appellant herein. 5. Before the Writ Court, Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Government Advocate, who had taken notice for the appellants, has sought for a reasonable time to pass orders on the disciplinary proceedings. Adverting to the pleadings and taking note of the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, vide order, dated 29.09.2015, this Court, at Paragraph 5, has ordered as follows: “5. 5. Before the Writ Court, Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Government Advocate, who had taken notice for the appellants, has sought for a reasonable time to pass orders on the disciplinary proceedings. Adverting to the pleadings and taking note of the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, vide order, dated 29.09.2015, this Court, at Paragraph 5, has ordered as follows: “5. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 07.12.2006 and as the petitioner has also submitted his written explanation, this Court finds that there is no impediment to direct the first respondent to pass final orders considering the charge memo, explanation and report of the Enquiry Officer and the written representation given by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6. Being aggrieved by the direction to the Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, 1st appellant herein, to pass final orders, on the charge memo, after considering the explanation and written statement, within the time frame, the present appeal is filed. 7. Though Mr.A.K.Bhaskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, assailed the correctness of the impugned order, on the grounds that the Writ Court has failed to consider the background of the facts, before the passing the impugned order and also failed to consider the important point that the 1st appellant had already filed a case in TDP No.27 of 2012, on the file of the Proceedings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil and further submitted that when the said issue is pending, there is every chance of a different conclusion expected from the Tribunal and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have issued any direction, as stated supra, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submissions, for the simple reason that the charge memo, dated 30.06.2004, has been issued, for certain misconduct and also for a failure to deduct Sales-Tax and amounts, due to the municipality. 8. These charges are nothing to do with TDP No.27 of 2012, on the file of the Proceedings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil. 8. These charges are nothing to do with TDP No.27 of 2012, on the file of the Proceedings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the subject matter was that during the check period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2005, the respondent, a former Municipal Commissioner, Karur Municipality, Karur, has been alleged to have accumulated moveable and immovable properties, in his name and in the name of his wife, to the tune of Rs.8,96,032.50, which was disproportionate to the known sources of income. Allegation has also been to the effect that the respondent has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner, which is unbecoming of a member of the Government Service and violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 9. Comparison of the Charge Memo, framed by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, dated 30.06.2004 and the proceedings in TDP No.27 of 2012, on the file of the Proceedings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil, makes it clear that both the proceedings are not one and the same. Subjects are entirely different. 10. Findings to be rendered by the Proceedings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil, regarding alleged accumulation of movable and immovable properties, is nothing to do with the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in Na.Ka.No.29948/2004/F 1-2, dated 30.06.2004. Grounds of challenge do not merit any consideration, warranting interference. 11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.