JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner who stands retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1991 as Vikas Adhikari has filed this writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents to finalise his case for pension and payment of pensionary benefits after regularisation of his service for the period between 28.5.1991 to 17.6.1991. He has also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay him salary for the aforesaid period and the order of suspension as well as inquiry if any, pending against him be quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service of State Government in Panchayati Raj Department on his appointment as Village Level Worker in the year 1952. He was promoted as Vikas Adhikari in the year 1979 and it is this post which he held at the time of his retirement. By order dated 28.5.1991 of the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of power under Rule-13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Petitioner made representation dated 28.5.1991 to the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and on that very day the Minister made an order staying the order of suspension. After the order was passed by the Minister, the Director Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department issued order dated 17.6.1991 reinstating the petitioner without prejudice to the departmental enquiry. However, for the period between 28.5.1991 to 17.6.1991 the petitioner has not been paid his salary. After his retirement the petitioner made representations for payment of pension and other retirement benefits. His application for grant of pensionary benefits and retirement benefits was forwarded to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. Some defects were pointed out in the pension papers vide letter Annexure - 8 dated 11.6.1992 of the Dy. Commissioner Development (Admn,), Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department and according to the petitioner he rectified all the defects. Even thereafter, his pension has not been released on the pretext that departmental enquiry is in contemplation. 3. Petitioner has stated that he had made representation to the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department on 4.5.1991 pointing out that the allegation levelled against him in respect of allotment of plot to one Sint. Ratan Devi was incorrect. Even thereafter, his pension has not been released on the pretext that departmental enquiry is in contemplation. 3. Petitioner has stated that he had made representation to the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department on 4.5.1991 pointing out that the allegation levelled against him in respect of allotment of plot to one Sint. Ratan Devi was incorrect. This representation was forwarded by the Collector, Tonk to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department vide his letter (Annex. 3). That letter was however, returned to the Collector by the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department with an observation that no such case was pending in the Directorate and the Collector should settle the matter on his own level. Office of the Collector has also written a letter dated 2.6.1991 to the Officer on Special Duty in the office of the Chief Minister pointing out that in fact the case was under consideration in the Directorate of Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. 4. The petitioner has stated that no departmental enquiry has so far been initiated against him and despite that his pension and other retirement benefits have been withheld. Notice of this writ petition had been issued by the Court on 8.2.1993 and the same were served on the respondents on or before 1.3.1993. Despite the service of notice neither any reply has been filed nor anybody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. From the facts which have come on record it is evident that the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1991 and a period of more than 1 year and 8 months has elapsed since the date of his retirement. Till this day charge- sheet has not been served on the petitioner. Notwithstanding this, his pension and other retirement benefits have been withheld. Whether the respondents can now serve a charge-sheet on the petitioner or not in view of the conditions contained in Rule 170(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not a question which requires to be determined in this case. It is sufficient to observe that any inquiry can now be initiated against the petitioner only if the delinquency alleged against the petitioner pertains to a period of four years anterior to his retirement i.e. any act or omission of delinquency committed by the petitioner on and after 13.12.1987. It is sufficient to observe that any inquiry can now be initiated against the petitioner only if the delinquency alleged against the petitioner pertains to a period of four years anterior to his retirement i.e. any act or omission of delinquency committed by the petitioner on and after 13.12.1987. If any delinquency pertains to a period prior to that date, no inquiry can now be initiated against the petitioner. However, the fact remains that no charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner till this day. It is, therefore, logical to hold that no inquiry is pending against the petitioner. When no inquiry is pending against the petitioner, it is not open to the respondents to withhold pension and other retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner and which became payable to him on 31.12.1991 itself. Pension and gratuity of an employee constitute his property and he can be deprived of such property only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Since no provision in the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 or any other set of service rules authorise with-holding of pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits even in the absence of pending of disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case, it is simply not open to the respondents to deny these benefits to the petitioner. In my opinion, the respondents have clearly acted without jurisdiction in with-holding pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. As far as the order of suspension of the petitioner is concerned, it need be observed that within a period of 20 days of passing of the order of suspension it was revoked by the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. More-over, the Minister of Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department had stayed the operation of the order of suspension. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the order of suspension never became effective. That being the position, salary admissible to the petitioner between 27.5.1991 to 17.6.1991 could not have been withheld by the respondents. 6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner within a period of two months of the submission of certified copy of this order. 6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner within a period of two months of the submission of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall be paid his salary for the period between 27.5.91 to 17.6.91 and the said period shall be treated as spent on duty for all purposes. If the amount of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits are not paid to the petitioner he shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% from the date of this order. Petitioner shall get costs of Rs. 1000/- because his pension, gratuity etc. have been withheld for a period of more than 1 year and six months without any justification and the respondents have failed to offer any explanation for such with - holding of pension and gratuity of the petitioner.Writ Petition allowed. *******