Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. in this writ application, in view of the sole question argued and pressed by Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, namely, that whether in view of the retirement of the petitioners from service during the pendency of this writ application the departmental proceeding against them can be continued? It is not necessary to extract facts from the bulky records of this writ application running into more than 250 pages. 2. The petitioners filed this writ application for quashing the order as contained in letter Nos. 5674 and 5675, dated 12th October, 1982 and in letter Nos. 6172 and 6173, dated 24th November, 1982 as contained in Annexure-1 series. In the said Annexures their employer the Patna Regional Development Authority (Respondent No.1) derected the petitioners to hand over possession of flat Nos. LF-1/55 and LF-1/58 situate in Rajendra Nagar, Police Station Kadam Kuan by 15th October, in refusal thereof to face their automatic suspension. The petitioners also challenge their suspension order dated 10th October 1983 as contained in Annexure 7-A and the charges as contained in Annexure-11 in a departmental proceeding initiated subsequently against them. 3. This case has got a chequered career. Earlier it was dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. The matter traveled to the Supreme Court. The order of dismissal was set aside and this court was directed to admit this application and dispose it as early as possible. This Cout was also directed to consider as to whether the order of suspension of the petitioner should be May, 1983 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5270 of 1983. it further appears from the record that without formally admitting this application in compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court. The Registrar by order No. 11 fixed 1st September, 1983 for its hearing. 4. By an order fated 10th August, 1984, the then BHon ble the chief Justice Mr.S.S.Sndhawalia passed an order directing this case to be placed for its hearing in ordinary course. By a further order dated 2nd Augest, 1985 he (the then Hon ble the Chief Justice Mr. S.S. Shandhawalia) passed yet another order directing the case to be heard in ordinary course. Thereafter this case was put up before me for its hearing. 5. It is an admitted position that both the petitioners have retired. 6. By a further order dated 2nd Augest, 1985 he (the then Hon ble the Chief Justice Mr. S.S. Shandhawalia) passed yet another order directing the case to be heard in ordinary course. Thereafter this case was put up before me for its hearing. 5. It is an admitted position that both the petitioners have retired. 6. Mr Mukherjee, for the said reason submits that the departmental proceeding cannot he continued. In this connection he relies upon the decision in R.T.Tngachri V/s. Secretary of State AIR 1937 PC 27 : State of Assam V/s. Padama Ram Borah AIR 1963 Mysore 206 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dharamdeo Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar 1979(3) SLR 443. Learned counsel further submits that the Bihar Improvement Trust officers and a servants (Appointment, Classification, Conduct, Control and Punishment) Rules, under which the petitioners were employed, does not provide that after retirement departmental proceedings can he continued against the petitioners. 7. Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, is not in a position to show to me any statutory provision that the departmental proceeding can be continued in relation to the employs of the patna Regional Development Authority (Respondent No. 1) after their retirement or the services of the petitioners have been extended. 8. In my view a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant comes to an end when he retires. He can be retained in service after his retirement so that a punishment may be imposed on him in a pending disciplinary proceeding. In the aforementioned view of the matter, I am of the view that the departmental proceeding cannot be allowed to be continued against the petitioners. The proceedings for the said reason are quashed. 9. Coming to the other relief of the petitioners as to whether the respondents can be allowed to dispossess them, I am of the view that the respondents can take recourse to law by initiating appropriate proceedings only. That not having been been done by the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be directed to be evicted in the manner done by Annexure-1 series. At this stage, Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents expresses an apprehension that the result of my order would be that the petitioners cannot be evicted at all. That not having been been done by the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be directed to be evicted in the manner done by Annexure-1 series. At this stage, Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents expresses an apprehension that the result of my order would be that the petitioners cannot be evicted at all. I am of the view that there shall be no bar at all in initiating an appropriate proceedings for legally evicting them. It goes without saying that the petitioners cannot be evicted save and except in accordance with law. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. Let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly quashing Annexure-1 series, 7-A and 11. Let a writ of mandamus also issue accordingly restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from the flats in question, save and except in accordance with law.