ORDER : (Prayer in Contempt Petition: Contempt Petition filed praying to punish the respondents for disobeying the orders of this court in w.P.No.18336 of 2012 dated 09.09.2014. Review Petition: Review Petition filed under 47 Rule 1 read with 114 CPC praying to review the order dated 9.09.2014 in W.P. No. 18336 of 2012.) 1. Contempt petition is filed by the writ petitioner with a grievance that the respondents failed to pass necessary orders in the stipulated period of time as granted by this court by order dated 09.09.2014 in W.P.No.18336 of 2012. 2. Review Petition is filed by the Department seeking to review the order dated 09.09.2014 passed in W.P.No.18336 of 2012, stating that the petitioner violated Rule 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. 1973. 3. The writ petitioner is found to have violated the Rules 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 as he contracted marriage for second time. Under Rule 17-b of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, charge memo was issued on 20.04.2006. After disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of removal from service and the order of removal is dated 30.03.2009. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the punishment. The petitioner was allowed to retire on 30.04.2006. Petitioner earlier approached this court by filing W.P.No.7922 of 2010, challenging the order dated 30.03.2009 and 12.01.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 and challenging the same, W.P.No.18336 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition was allowed and the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned orders directing the respondents to work out the benefits due to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner. 4. The ground taken by the writ petitioner in W.P.18336 of 2012 is that after attaining the age of superannuation, his case would come under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and that after the date of retirement, no disciplinary action could be initiated against the petitioner except under the Pension Rules. 5. 4. The ground taken by the writ petitioner in W.P.18336 of 2012 is that after attaining the age of superannuation, his case would come under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and that after the date of retirement, no disciplinary action could be initiated against the petitioner except under the Pension Rules. 5. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, observed that the action of the 2nd respondent in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner under Rule 17-b of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and serving notice for violating Rule 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 and not converting the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, is illegal and the authorities have no right to impose the punishment of removal from service. Holding so, the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned orders dated 30.03.2009, 12.01.2010 and 19.04.2012 and directed the respondents to work out the benefits due to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of said order. However, the said order has not been complied with by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner filed the contempt petition. 6. On the other hand, Review Application is filed seeking to review the order dated 09.09.2014. According to the Review Applicants/Respondents, the writ petitioner has contracted second marriage while his first wife is alive and also suppressed the fact to the department higher authorities. Hence he was awarded punishment of removal from service. It is submitted that the petitioner and his first wife were given enough opportunities to defend their side during the departmental enquiry proceedings regarding bigamy and got the written statement about his satisfaction about the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. But contrary to earlier statement, he alleged that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry in a proper way and he was dissatisfied about the enquiry. The petitioner’s guilt came to light only in the year 2004, through his first wife’s petition to the higher authorities. The Respondent-Department immediately acted and took disciplinary action without any bias and that there is no illegality or delayed action on the part of the respondents to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner nominated his second wife and three children as his nominee for his General Provident Fund Scheme. The Respondent-Department immediately acted and took disciplinary action without any bias and that there is no illegality or delayed action on the part of the respondents to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner nominated his second wife and three children as his nominee for his General Provident Fund Scheme. At the same time, the petitioner did not mention his firs wife’s name in the nomination papers to the Department and this action clearly proved his guilt and he entered bigamous marriage without divorcing his first wife. The disciplinary action taken against the petitioner is appropriate one and the impugned orders are passed in order to defend the fame of the department. The Departmental enquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down in Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and punishment was awarded within the limitation of law. The action of the respondents is sustainable in law as the bigamous marriage of the petitioner was considered as discredit to the fame of the Government under Rule 19 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973. The petitioner belongs to the category under the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Services and the 3rd Review Applicant-The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) is the appointing authority and as per the provisions of the said rules, the 3rd Applicant is empowered to impose penalties mentioned in item (vi), (vii) and (viii) in Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for violation of Rule 19 of the Tamil nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973. 7. The Review Applicants/Department submitted that the entries made in the Service Register of the petitioner was only on the basis of petitioner’s written document made in favour of his second wife and her children and as per law in force, it is invalid one and unsustainable. 8. It is further submitted that the respondent-Department framed two charges against the writ petitioner for his illegal marriage with another person. The two charges were proved at the time of departmental enquiry. Moreover the petitioner himself admitted that he made nomination to his General Provident Fund in favour of another person when his legally married wife is alive. It clearly shows his guilt and failure to disclose the truth to the authorities. 9. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the department enquiry was conducted in a fair manner without any bias. Moreover the petitioner himself admitted that he made nomination to his General Provident Fund in favour of another person when his legally married wife is alive. It clearly shows his guilt and failure to disclose the truth to the authorities. 9. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the department enquiry was conducted in a fair manner without any bias. The enquiry itself revealed the fact that the petitioner entered a marriage contract with another person while his first wife is alive which is the violation of Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973 and hence he was awarded the punishment of removal from service. Hence, there is no necessity to apply Disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978. 10. The learned Government Advocate in support of his submissions drawn the attention of this court to the G.O.Ms.No.216 Personal and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department dated 01.09.1998 dated 01.09.1998. It is submitted that the writ petitioner who is due to retire on 30.04.2006 was not permitted to retire on his reaching the age of superannuation, but he was retained in service until the enquiry into charges pending against him are concluded and final orders passed thereon by the Competent Authority. The Proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 27.04.2006 would go to show that the salary of the writ petitioner was reduced by the said proceedings with effect from 01.05.2006 to the amount of provisional pension and the petitioner was deemed to be on extension of service for the period beyond 30.04.2006, the date on which he attained the age of superannuation till the enquiry into charges pending against him is concluded and final orders passed thereon. The proceedings further reads that during the extension of service, the service rights which would have accrued to the petitioner shall freeze at the level reached on the date of retirement i.e. 30.04.2006. 11. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate as per Rule 56(i)(c) of the Fundamental Rules even though Government servants retire on superannuation, in cases of suspension on charges of misconduct, retention in service beyond the date of retirement was allowed and the amendment to the Fundamental Rules in this regard is issued vide G.O.Ms.No.216 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.IV) Department dated 01.09.1998. The said G.O., reads as under:- GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Fundamental -Rules - Rule 56 (1) (c) - Retirement on superannuation Government Servants under suspension on charges of misconduct, etc - Retention in service beyond the date of retirement - Amendment - Issued. Personal and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department G.O.Ms.No. 216 Dated: 1.9.1998 Read: (i) G.O.Ms.No. 174, P & AR (FR.IV) Department. Dated 28.3.96. (ii) From the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Audit -I). Chennai-35, D.O.Letter No.AG (AU-I)/CO/II/1-6/98-99/21. Dated 18.5.98. ORDER: The existing practice of issuing orders at the Government level for retaining the services of a Government servant under suspension beyond the day of his retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(1) (c) has been examined in detail. 2. After detailed examination, it has been decided to modify the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c) so as to entrust the responsibility of issuing orders under the said rule to the appointing authorities. The following amendment to the existing Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c) is therefore issued. 3. The following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:- NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 read with Article 313 of the Constitution of India and all other powers hereunto enabling, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Fundamental Rules. 2. The amendment hereby made shall come into force on the 1st September 1998. AMENDMENT In the said Rules in Rule 56, in Sub Rule (1) in clause (c) for the words “shall not be permitted by the Government to retire on his reaching the date of retirement” the words “shall not be permitted by the appointing authority to retire on his reaching the date of retirement” shall be substituted. D.Prakash. Secretary to Government.”” 12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in his affidavit in paragraph 3, in W.P.No.18336 of 2012 has admitted that he was placed under suspension, subsequently, by proceedings of third respondent in Rc.No.5202/c8/C31/2004 dated 27.04.2006, orders were issued to him not permitting him to retire from service until the enquiry into grave charges pending and final orders passed thereon by the competent authority and he was paid the amount of provisional pension. In paragraph 4, the petitioner further admitted that on 01.09.1973 his first wife gave a lawyer notice containing false and imaginary allegations, which was suitably replied on 12.09.1972; several requests thereafter made to his wife to come and live with him, proved futile. A Panchayat was convened as per custom and in the presence of Panchayatdars it was agreed that the marriage held in 1970 was dissolved......” 13. Heard and perused the records. 14. On a perusal of entire records, it is apparent that the respondent in the Review Application contracted 2nd marriage while 1st marriage was in subsistence. There is nothing on record to show that respondent/writ petitioner’s marriage with the 1st wife was dissolved in the manner known to law. Therefore, in the light of the Rules 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, while the 1st marriage was in subsistence, 2nd marriage is not permissible. Under criminal law, it is an offence under Section 494 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to retire on his reaching the age of superannuation since departmental proceedings is to be concluded. He was retained in service and the petitioner was deemed to be on extension of service. In such circumstances, the contention of the writ petitioner (respondent in Review Application) is not acceptable. 15. The allegation against the respondent in the Review Application is that he being the Government Servant contracted 2nd marriage while 1st marriage was in subsistence. Therefore, based on the complaint given by the 1st wife, disciplinary proceedings was initiated. Before conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent/writ petitioner attained superannuation. However, he was not permitted to retire from service and he was kept in service for the purpose of continuation of disciplinary proceedings. Later on the disciplinary proceedings was concluded and during disciplinary proceedings, the charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner was proved and he was awarded punishment of removal from service as per Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Challenging the said impugned orders, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.18336 of 2012. Later on the disciplinary proceedings was concluded and during disciplinary proceedings, the charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner was proved and he was awarded punishment of removal from service as per Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Challenging the said impugned orders, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.18336 of 2012. Though the writ court has observed that the action of the 2nd respondent-Director of School Education in initiating disciplinary action against the writ petitioner under Rule 17-b of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and serving notice for violating Rule 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973 and not converting the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, is illegal and the authorities have no right to impose the punishment of removal from service, it is settled proposition of law that in the departmental proceedings, proving the charges by preponderance of probability is sufficient and that the charges need not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as in criminal case. 16. Writ Petitioner’s 1st wife given a complaint to the Department/Review Applicants stating that she is the 1st wife and her name should be entered in the nomination papers. The writ petitioner also not denied the 1st marriage between him and the 1st wife, who made the complaint before the Department. Further the Respondent-Department, by following the principles of natural justice, rightly concluded the departmental proceedings and come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner (respondent in Review Application) suppressed the fact regarding the 1stmarriage, and he given the name of the 2nd wife and children in all the nomination papers. Therefore, the department come to the conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner is proved. But, the writ court, on the sole ground treating the writ petitioner as a retired employee, quashed the impugned proceedings passed by the Review Applicants holding that Pension Rules should have been applied in the case. 17. In this case admittedly, the writ petitioner did not give the name of the 1st wife in the nomination papers but he has given the name of other woman for which the respondent/writ petitioner has to prove that the marriage with the 1st wife is dissolved in the due process of law. 17. In this case admittedly, the writ petitioner did not give the name of the 1st wife in the nomination papers but he has given the name of other woman for which the respondent/writ petitioner has to prove that the marriage with the 1st wife is dissolved in the due process of law. In the absence of the same, the department has come to the conclusion that since he has not produced any document to show that the 1stmarriage was dissolved by the competent court, the respondent contracting 2nd marriage was in violation of Rule 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. Further, the Review Applicants by conducting the department enquiry in a fair manner and following the Fundamental Rules, retained the petitioner in service until the enquiry into charges pending against him were concluded and by deemed extension of service for the period beyond his superannuation. Thereafter, on conclusion of departmental proceedings, awarded the punishment of removal from service. Till such time, he was not permitted to retire but he was deemed to be in service. Therefore, it is not necessary to convert the Disciplinary Proceedings under Pension Rules, 1978. Since the respondent/writ petitioner has continued in service until the impugned proceedings in the writ petition was passed on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and awarding punishment of removal from service, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 need not be applied. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner was not permitted to retire. Only when the Government Servant retired from the service, Pension Rules could be applied. Therefore, in this case, Pension Rules is not applicable to the writ petitioner. Holding so, this court has no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the writ court dated 09.09.2014 vide W.P.No.18336 of 2012. The observation of the learned Judge is necessarily to be reviewed and require interference of this court. 18. In the result, the Review Application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.18336 of 2012 dated 09.09.2014 is set aside. Since the Review Application is allowed and the order passed in writ petition is set aside, contempt does not arise. Accordingly, contempt petition filed by the writ petitioner is closed. No costs.