JUDGMENT 1. Dismissal of the petitioner from service by order dated, 15.11.84 of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, appellate order passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur on 30.4.85 and rejection of his review petition by order dated, 20.2.86 are under challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner joined service in the Police Department in the year 1950. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1965. While holding the post of Head Constable in district Bharatpur, petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated, 11.10.75 of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. Alongwith him, Constables. Mala Ram, Samunder Singh, Manohar Lal and Om Prakash were also suspended. This all happened on account of registration of a case against them under section-221 of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Even before initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner which was ultimately done by Memorandum dated, 17.7.76 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, petitioner was retired by the same authority in the purported exercise of its power under Rule-22(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, passed an order dated, 14.9.76 appointing himself as enquiry officer for the purpose of joint enquiry against the petitioner and four other Constables. 3. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry initiated vide memo dated, 17.7.76 order of retirement dated, 10.5.76 was revoked by another order dated 27.1.77 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. In the Criminal case the petitioner was convicted under section-223 I.P.C. on 11.10.79 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, No. 2 Jaipur. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur acquitted the petitioner. After conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated, 11.1.80 on the ground of his conviction. After acceptance of the appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Superintendent of Police passed order dated, 12.11.84 for reinstatement of the petitioner with a rider that the petitioner will be deemed to be under suspension w.e.f. 11.1.80. Just after three days he passed order dated, 15.11.84 dismissing the petitioner from service on the premise that four out of the five charges levelled against him in the departmental enquiry have been found to be proved. Just after three days he passed order dated, 15.11.84 dismissing the petitioner from service on the premise that four out of the five charges levelled against him in the departmental enquiry have been found to be proved. Petitioner filed appeal against the order of punishment. This appeal was dismissed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur, by his order dated, 30.4.85. Petitioner then filed review petition before the Governor. That review petition has been dismissed and dismissal of the same has been conveyed to the petitioner by order dated. 30.2.86. 4. Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the grounds of malafide, arbitrariness, violation of the principles of natural justice, discrimination etc. Respondents have admitted the facts regarding the suspension of the petitioner and four other Constables. They have also admitted that the petitioner was retired from service and also that enquiry was initiated after retirement of the petitioner. It has also been admitted that joint enquiry was ordered to be conducted vide order dated, 14.9.76. Dismissal of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.1.80 and his reinstatement after acquittal have also not been disputed. They have stated that the departmental enquiry was continued because order of compulsory retirement was ordered to be revoked by the Government. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.12.79. However before passing an order of final order, the petitioner was dismissed by order dated, 10.1.80. The punishing authority imposed penalty on four other defaulting officers by order dated, 30.1.80. No order could be passed in respect of the petitioner because, he had already been dismissed from service w.e.f. 10.1.80. When his dismissal was revoked in the face of acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge, the disciplinary authority issued order of punishment on the basis of enquiry which had already been completed. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that order of retirement of the petitioner had been passed on 10.5.76. Departmental enquiry was initiated only thereafter. A perusal of memorandum dated, 17.7.76 shows that the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, had issued that order. Order of joint enquiry was also passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 14.9.76. No fresh charge-sheet was served on the petitioner after he was ordered to be reinstated on the basis of order dated, 18.10.77 passed by the Government. A perusal of memorandum dated, 17.7.76 shows that the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, had issued that order. Order of joint enquiry was also passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 14.9.76. No fresh charge-sheet was served on the petitioner after he was ordered to be reinstated on the basis of order dated, 18.10.77 passed by the Government. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 11.1.80 not on the basis of the findings recorded by the department / enquiry officer but on the basis of his conviction by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jaipur City Jaipur, vide judgment dated, 11.10.79. 5. An enquiry under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 can be held only against a Government servant. Initiation of enquiry under these rules pre-supposes existence of relationship of master and servant between the Government and the Government servant.An enquiry against a retired person cannot be initiated under the rules of 1958 simpliciter. The only provision under which an enquiry can be initiated after retirement of the Government servant is the one contained in rule-170 (d) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Of course, an enquiry which has already been initiated against a Government servant before his retirement can be continued under rule-170 even after his retirement. It can, therefore, be aid that the only source of power for initiation of enquiry against a retired Government servant can be traced in rule-170. However, when such an enquiry is to be initiated limitations and conditions enumerated in that rule will have to be strictly adhered to. Rule-170 (d) provides for initiation of enquiry against a retired Government servant only with the prior sanction of the governor. Here the entire action was taken by the S. P. Bharatpur on his own. The petitioner had specifically raised this point regarding the lack of authority of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatput in initiating enquiry against him by memo dated, 17.6.76 but, it has been. brushed aside by the reviewing authority without giving any cogent reason. Reason given by the reviewing authority is based on expediency, namely that subsequently, the Government had revoked order of retirement and therefore, the initiation if enquiry will be deemed to be valid. brushed aside by the reviewing authority without giving any cogent reason. Reason given by the reviewing authority is based on expediency, namely that subsequently, the Government had revoked order of retirement and therefore, the initiation if enquiry will be deemed to be valid. This cannot be treated as a legal justification because, on the date of initiation of the enquiry, the Superintendent of Police was not vested with any authority to initiate enquiry against the petitioner. Mere reinstatement of the petitioner by order dated, 28.10.77 does not ipso-facto validate the enquiry which was void at the time of initiation. It is, therefore, held that the very initiation of enquiry against the petitioner vide memo dated, 17.7.76 was illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, order of punishment passed on the basis of such enquiry is also liable to be declared as void. 6. Another serious infirmity with which the order of punishment suffers is that when the petitioner had been dismissed from service on 11.1.80, that dismissal was not conditional. Relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the Government was severed completely on 11.1.80. Nothing remained pending against the petitioner on that day. Therefore, after the petitioner was reinstated in service, it was not open to the Superintendent of Police to have acted upon the enquiry report which had been submitted to him by the enquiry officer before passing an order of dismissal on 11.1.80. 7. In view of these serious legal infirmities, I do not consider it necessary to adjudicate upon other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Once it is held that the original order to punishment is bad on account of lack of jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police to initiate enquiry, appellate as well as review order are also liable to be quashed. 9. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated, 15.11.84, 30.4.85 and 20.2.86 are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service and he shall be entitled to other consequential benefits. Respondents are left free to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner. In that event, the petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension in terms of Rule-13(4), and shall not be entitled to full pay and allowances but he shall be entitled only to subsistence allowance in terms of rule-53 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.Petition allowed. *******