the respondents for passing any final order. The petitioner should not be denied his retiral entitlements for failure on the part of the respondents to take appropriate steps. 15. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that although the petitioner had been under suspension prior to his superannuation, the respondent no. 2 by an office order dated 16th April, 2018 had revoked the order of suspension and had directed the petitioner to report for duty. Despite the said order records that the same was without prejudice to the finalization of the disciplinary case pending against the petitioner, initiated vide charge sheet dated 6th December, 2012, records reveal that by a subsequent notice in writing dated 29th November, 2021, the respondents had purported to notify the petitioner of his date of superannuation. Consequent upon the aforesaid, the petitioner was also permitted to retire and was superannuated from service with effect from 28th February, 2002. The matter did not stop there. The respondents further during the pendency of the writ application on their own volition made payment of the retiral dues and on 28th July 2022, handed over a chart, in Court, showing particulars of payments made in favour of the petitioner which, inter alia, includes provident fund and gratuity.
