As per case facts, an IAS officer was due to retire on 31.08.2015. Allegations of money laundering from 2005, when he was Chairman of Chennai Port Trust, led to a ... charge memo being issued on 26.08.2015. On the day of his retirement, he left office early, and the charge memo was served via email, registered post (returned "refused"), and by pasting it on his official residence. He challenged the charge memo and subsequent enquiry proceedings, arguing improper service and that he had already retired. The Tribunal dismissed his applications. The central legal question arose whether the charge memo was validly served on the petitioner, a public servant, who was due to retire and left office early, when the rules stipulate in-person delivery but alternative methods like email and affixation were used due to his alleged avoidance of service. Finally, the High Court held that the petitioner had deliberately avoided the charge memo's receipt and his claim of immediate retirement after leaving office early was rejected, as a public servant remains in service until closing hours. The court found that all reasonable steps were taken to serve the memo, including via email, registered post, and affixation. Therefore, the charge memo was deemed to have been duly served, and the disciplinary proceedings against him were valid. The Writ Petitions were dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's order.