After retirement, pending disciplinary proceedings may continue under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

The petitioner, a District Backward Class and Minority Welfare Officer, challenged the suspension order dated 26 May 2023 and the order dated 31 May 2023 by which he was not permitted to retire upon attaining superannuation, but was retained in service pending disciplinary proceedings.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents submitted that, pursuant to an amendment to the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service.

However, the pending disciplinary proceedings were directed to continue under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, by G.O.(2D) No.87 dated 12 January 2026.

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the suspension order dated 26 May 2023 and the order refusing to permit his retirement dated 31 May 2023 survived after he was subsequently permitted to retire from service

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to challenge G.O.(2D) No.87 dated 12 January 2026, under which the disciplinary proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous when subsequent events remove the live controversy or render the relief sought incapable of effective adjudication.

The Court also recognised the operation of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, under which disciplinary proceedings may continue against a retired government servant in accordance with the applicable pension rules.

The Court further proceeded on the basis that the petitioner could separately challenge the subsequent Government Order if he was aggrieved by the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings.

The original writ petition sought permission for the petitioner to retire on 31 May 2023 and consequential retirement and pensionary benefits, while also challenging his suspension and retention in service.

Since the respondents subsequently permitted him to retire pursuant to the amended Fundamental Rules, the principal relief claimed in the petition no longer required adjudication.

Although the disciplinary proceedings continued under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, that subsequent action arose under G.O.(2D) No.87 dated 12 January 2026 and was not necessary to decide the original challenge.

The Court therefore concluded that no live issue remained in the writ petition, while preserving the petitioner’s right to independently challenge the subsequent Government Order.

The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge G.O.(2D) No.87 dated 12 January 2026, if so advised.

The Court imposed no costs.