Short Note : The petitioner was initially appointed as a Patwari by the Suba i.e. Collector in the erstwhile State of Gwalior which post he continued to occupy after the formation of the State of Madhya Bharat and eventually the State of Madhya Pradesh. On 18-1-1963, he was placed under suspension and a departmental inquiry was held against him. It ended in the order of his dismissal from service which was passed on 20-3-1964. Aggrieved thereby he moved the High Court. The petition M.P. No.5 of 1967 was allowed on 10-8-1972. The case was remanded to be dealt with in accordance with law. On 27-11-1972, the Collector, Gwalior, passed an order (Annexure 10) retiring the petitioner with effect from 20-7-1972. On 4-1-1973, the Collector also served a notice on the petitioner (Annexure 15) to show cause why he should not be dismissed and ultimately dismissed the petitioner vide his order dated 30-1-1973 (Annexure 18). Held : It deserves mention at the outset that notwithstanding the order of retirement, in the show cause notice dated 2-1-1973 (Annexure 15), the Collector, Gwalior treated the petitioner as one still under suspension and indeed dealt with him as such in the order of dismissal (Annexure 18). As it is, however, the order of suspension made against the petitioner was doubtless one made pending the departmental inquiry and not as a measure of penalty after the inquiry. That being so, the order of suspension lapsed with the order of dismissal which was initially passed on 20-03-1964 as a result of the departmental inquiry. The mere fact that the order of dismissal was subsequently struck down by this Court in M.P. No. 5 of 1967 on 10-8-1972 as illegal could not revive the order of suspension which ceased to exist. Since no fresh order of suspension was passed thereafter, it was wholly illegal to treat the petitioner as one under suspension after 20-3-1964 till the date of his retirement. Om Prakash Gupta v. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 600 , relied on. 2. That brings the Court to the order dated 27-11-1972 retiring the petitioner with effect from 20-7-1972. It is well settled that the retirement becomes effective from the date of the order and cannot operate retrospectively. The petitioner, therefore, must be deemed to have been retired with effect from 27-11-1972 and not on 20-7-1972. 2. That brings the Court to the order dated 27-11-1972 retiring the petitioner with effect from 20-7-1972. It is well settled that the retirement becomes effective from the date of the order and cannot operate retrospectively. The petitioner, therefore, must be deemed to have been retired with effect from 27-11-1972 and not on 20-7-1972. R. Jeevratnam v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 951 , relied on. 3. As already stated, the show cause notice dated 2-1-1973 was served on the petitioner on 4-1-1973 and on 30-1-1973 the impugned order dismissing him from service was passed. The pertinent question is whether the disciplinary proceedings which were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement could be continued after his retirement. This Court holds that the disciplinary proceedings, which remained pending against the petitioner by virtue of this Court's order in M.P. No. 5 of 1967, lapsed with his retirement which became validly operative with effect from 27-11-1972. In ether words, all proceedings taken out therein thereafter inclusive of order of dismissal dated 30-1-1973 were without any authority of law and, therefore, are liable to be and are hereby struck down. R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 PC 27 , State of Assam and others v. Padma Ram Borah, AIR 1965 SC 473 , relied on. Petition partly allowed.