DAVE C., J.—This is a writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by Shri Nawal Kishore Dubey who was holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Rajasthan till 11th September, 1961. On the 11th September, 1961 four Deputy Superintendents of Police including the petitioner were retired compulsory from the government service under R. 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules by order of the Government. It was noted in the same order that they were permitted to proceed on privilege leave to the extent due, not exceeding 120 days, from the 18th of September, 1961. It was further ordered that their retirement would be effective from the date of expiry of such leave if availed of by them, otherwise with effect from 18th September, 196l. The petitioners case is, that he did not avail of the earned leave which stood to his credit and, therefore, his retirement, according to the said order, became effective from the afternoon of the 18th September, 1961. His grievance is, that after his retirement, the Government issued another order dated 3rd October, 1961 (Ex.7) whereby the order regarding his compulsory retirement was held in abeyance till the decision of the departmental enquiry which was pending against him before his retirement. It is stated by him that while he was in service, he was served with a notice dated 24.5.61 by the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, and he was also supplied with a statement of allegations together with charges on which departmental enquiry was proposed to be held under R. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. He was required to submit his explanation within fifteen day?. He submitted his explanation within time. On 25.7.61 he was suspended in connection with the departmental enquiry which was initiated against him. According to him, his suspension order as also the departmental enquiry should be taken to have been terminated when he was compulsory retired from government service and after his retirement had become effective, no power was left with the government to hold the order of his retirement in abeyance and recommence the enquiry against him. He, therefore, presented a writ application in this Court on 13.5.63 and it was prayed by him that a writ of prohibition be issued against the State of Rajasthan restraining it from proceeding further with the departmental enquiry. He, therefore, presented a writ application in this Court on 13.5.63 and it was prayed by him that a writ of prohibition be issued against the State of Rajasthan restraining it from proceeding further with the departmental enquiry. It was also prayed that the notices dated 31.10.62 and 26.4.63, which were issued against him to show cause why he should not be punished with dismissal, should be quashed. While the petitioners writ application was pending in this Court, the Government passed another order dated 30.6.64 (Ex. S.. 4) whereby he was dismissed from service. The petitioner then moved an application to amend his writ petition and after the permission was granted, he filed an amended writ application. In the amended petition, it has been prayed by him that the order of dismissal dated 30.6.64 should be quashed and it should be declared that he was effectively retired under R. 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 2. The writ application has been contested by the State of Rajasthan. It is admitted that the petitioner was retired compulsory under R. 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules by the order dated 11th September, 1961, but it is said that the said order was issued by mistake, as it escaped the notice of the government that the petitioner was already under suspension and a departmental enquiry was going on against him. It is pointed out that the order of his compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) could not be issued on account of the provisions of R. 56(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. When this mistake was realised, the Government passed another order dated 3.10.61 holding the order of 11th September, 1961 in abeyance, till further orders. Thereafter the enquiry officer proceeded to hold an enquiry which was pending against the petitioner. Since certain charges were found proved against him, he was served with another notice and was called upon to show cause why he should not be demoted to the post of Inspector of Police. This notice was dated 31.10.62. The petitioner filed a reply to this notice and thereafter the papers were sent to the Public Service Commission for their advice. The Public Service Commission was not satisfied with the proposed punishment and advised the government that a fresh notice should be given to the petitioner as he deserved to be dismissed from service. This notice was dated 31.10.62. The petitioner filed a reply to this notice and thereafter the papers were sent to the Public Service Commission for their advice. The Public Service Commission was not satisfied with the proposed punishment and advised the government that a fresh notice should be given to the petitioner as he deserved to be dismissed from service. In pursuance of this recommendation, a fresh notice was served upon the petitioner on 26.4.63 to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26.6.63. It is admitted that the petitioner was then dismissed from service on 30.6.64. It is asserted on behalf of the respondent that since the petitioner was retired compulsory under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules by mistake, the Government had a right to hold that order in abeyance and proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is further asserted that even though the petitioner was first served with a notice to show cause against his demotion, it was still open to the Government to issue another notice in view of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission to show cause against his dismissal. It is urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the order of dismissal dated 30.6.64 passed against the petitioner is quite valid and, therefore, the writ application should be dismmissed with costs. 3. The questions, which arise for our determination, are (1) whether the order retiring the petitioner compulsory under R. 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules could not have been passed on account of the provisions of R. 56 (b) and (2) whether it was open to the government to keep in abeyance its order dated 11.9.61 after the petitioners retirement had become effective on 18.9.61 and to re-commence the enquiry and pass an order of dismissal. 4. Now, it would be proper to take up the first question first. In order to appreciate the arguments which have been advanced on either side, RR. 56 and 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as they stood in 1961 may be reproduced here. They were as follows: "R.56 (a) Except as otherwise provided, the date of compulsory retirement of a government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. 56 and 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as they stood in 1961 may be reproduced here. They were as follows: "R.56 (a) Except as otherwise provided, the date of compulsory retirement of a government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement, with the sanction of the Government, on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. (b) A Government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be required or permitted to retire on reaching the date of compulsory retirement, but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order passed thereon by competent authority." "244 (1) x x x (2) Government retains an absolute right to retire any government servant after he has completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised except when it is in public interest to dispense with further service of a Government servant." 5. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that R. 56(b) would apply only to those cases in which a government servant is permitted to retire or is required to retire on attaining the age of superannuation which was 55 years at that time. According to him, it would not apply where a government servant is retired compulsorily under R. 244 (2). It is contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, that a government servant under suspension on a charge of mis-conduct could not be required to retire compulsory under R. 244 (2) and that R. 56 (b) applied as much to a case under R. 244 (2) as to a case covered by R. 56 (a). 6. Learned counsel on either side have not referred to any decided case of this Court or of any other High Court or the Supreme Court which may have a direct bearing on this point. We have, therefore, to interpret R. 56(b) untrammelled by any precedent. 6. Learned counsel on either side have not referred to any decided case of this Court or of any other High Court or the Supreme Court which may have a direct bearing on this point. We have, therefore, to interpret R. 56(b) untrammelled by any precedent. We have,given due consideration to the arguments raised by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, but we think that R. 56(b), as framed, on strict interpretation, applied only to retirement of a government servant attaining the age of superannuation and it does not seem to have been laid down to cover a case arising under R. 244(2). Normally, it is desirable not to retire a government servant compulsory even under R. 244(2) if he is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and an enquiry is pending against him, but, if such an order is passed and is not tainted with malice, it cannot be said that it would be illegal having been hit by the provisions of R. 56(b). R. 56(b) lays down that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be permitted to retire on reaching the date of compulsory retirement. This would mean that if a certain government servant reaches the date of compulsory retirement, which can only be the date on which he attains the age of superannuation, he should not be permitted to retire, if he is under an order of suspension and a departmental inquiry is proceeding against him. 7. Under R. 56(b) he should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed by a competent authority. Similarly, it is laid down that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be required to retire on reaching the date of compulsory retirement, but he should be retained in service until the inquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed by the competent authority. The words "on reaching the date of compulsory retirement" appearing in this sub-rule are very significant and they apply as much to permission to retire as to an order of the government requiring the government servant to retire. A government servant can reach the date of compulsory retirement only when he attains the age of superannuation, which was 55 years on the relevant date. A government servant can reach the date of compulsory retirement only when he attains the age of superannuation, which was 55 years on the relevant date. It is note-worthy that under R. 244(2) a government servant does not automatically reach any date of compulsory retirement. The language of R. 244(2), as it stood at the relevant time, laid down that the government retained an absolute right to retire a government servant after he had completed 25 years qualifying service, without giving any reasons. It was not incumbent for the government to retire a government servant under this Rule on the date he completed 25 years qualifying service. In other words, the government could exercise its powers given by that Rule at any time, after the government servant had completed 25 years qualifying service. The contingency of a government servant reaching the date of compulsory retirement under this Rule could not therefore arise in any case. Thus, to our mind, R. 56(b) did not impose any bar against the government if it decided to retire a government servant under R. 244(2) even if an enquiry was pending against him. 8. It may be further observed that a government servant can be demoted, removed or dismissed from service only if he continues to be in the employ of the government. Before a government servant is punished with demotion, removal or dismissal, it becomes necessary to hold an enquiry against him under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The term government servant as defined in the said Rules, means a person who is a member of the service or who holds civil post under the Government of Rajasthan. A person who retires or who is made to retire from service no longer remains a member of the service or the holder of a civil post under the Government. Once the order of his retirement becomes effective, he cannot, thereafter, be demoted, removed or dismissed from service. In fact, the question of his demotion, removal or dismissal does not arise at all, after his retirement. 9. Now, in the present case, the order of the petitioners compulsory retirement became effective from the afternoon of the 18th September, 1961. Once the order of his retirement becomes effective, he cannot, thereafter, be demoted, removed or dismissed from service. In fact, the question of his demotion, removal or dismissal does not arise at all, after his retirement. 9. Now, in the present case, the order of the petitioners compulsory retirement became effective from the afternoon of the 18th September, 1961. This position is not contested on behalf of the respondent, because it was expressly noted in the order of the petitioners retirement that the retirement would become effective from the afternoon of the 18th September, 1961 if the leave standing to his credit was not availed of by that time. It is not denied by the respondent that the petitioner did not apply for leave after he was served with the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner having retired effectively from the afternoon of the 18th September, 1961,, the order of his retirement could not be held in abeyance by another order dated 3rd October, 1961. The petitioners case is, that the government was well aware of the fact that he was under suspension and that a departmental enquiry was proceeding against him. It is urged on his behalf that, in fact it was on account of the background of the enquiry held against him, that the government proceeded to retire him compulsory under R. 244(2). According to him, it was not correct to say that this order of compulsory retirement was passed by mistake and in ignorance of his being under suspension. We are also unable to understand how it could escape the notice of the authorities that the petitioner was under suspension and that an enquiry was proceeding against him when an order under R. 244(2) was passed against him. It appears that later on, it dawned upon somebody that the petitioner ought to have been punished severely and, therefore, that order was held in abeyance. We are again unable to understand how the order of compulsory retirement could be held in abeyance after it bad become effective. It could only be set aside if such a power still rested with the government. But, we have not been referred to any rule which empowered the government to set aside that order to the detriment of the petitioner. It could only be set aside if such a power still rested with the government. But, we have not been referred to any rule which empowered the government to set aside that order to the detriment of the petitioner. It would have been a different case if that order were set aside at the request of the petitioner and if the government were satisfied that the order was passed wrongly. In our view the order dated 3rd October, 1961 (Ex.7) was therefore, not valid and there is no alternative for us but to quash it. Once that order is quashed, the subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioner by recommencing the enquiry and the order of dismissal passed after the conclusion of the enquiry cannot be allowed to stand. 10. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that it was also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry held against his client after 3rd October, 1961 suffered from several irregularities and that the order of dismissal could not be upheld on those grounds also. We consider it unnecessary to enter into that argument since the petitioner succeeds on another ground. 11. The Writ application is, therefore, allowed, the orders of the government dated 3rd October, 1961 (Ex. 7) and 30th June, 1964 (Ex. 5-4) relating to the petitioners dismissal are hereby quashed and it is declared that the petitioner was effectively retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules from the afternoon of the 18th September, 1961. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.