JUDGMENT 1. - In this Writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the charge-sheet dated 19.7.1991, the order dated 7.3.1980 (Annexure/4) issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sawai Madhopur as well as the order dated 23.12.1991 (Annex. 16) issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sawai Madhopur. He has prayed that these orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to give him all his pensionary benefits, gratuity, State Insurance amount etc. 2. Although, the facts stated in the Writ petition are in a confused state, Shri Alok Sharma, learned C ounsel for the respondents, has very fairly placed the entire record before the Court and from this record it is borne out that the petitioner, who was holding the post of Patwari in the Irrigation Division and who was under suspension with effect from 1.2.1979 attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31.1.1980. Order of his retirement was passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sawai Madhopur. In the order Annexure/1 issued by the Executive Engineer, it came to be mentioned that the petitioner is being retired with effect from 31.1.1980 and his pension case will be prepared only after finalisation of the case pending against the employee. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in respect of an offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and the said prosecution ended on 17.5.1988 when the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed judgement of his acquittal by giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, order dated 7.3.1980 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sawai Madhopur for termination of his service under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. This order contains the stipulation that the petitioner is missing from service since 14/2/1979 after committing embezzlement of Rs. 7,322.24. It appears from the order that a notice had been issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sawai Madhopur and was got published in the Rajasthan Patrika daily. But the petitioner is said to have absented from duty despite the said notice. The order dated 7.3.1980 was cancelled by the same Officer who issued another order dated 27.6.1980. Yet another order was issued by the Executive Engineer for cancellation of the order dated 27.6.1980 and the order of retirement of the petitioner was issued on 30.1.1980. 3. But the petitioner is said to have absented from duty despite the said notice. The order dated 7.3.1980 was cancelled by the same Officer who issued another order dated 27.6.1980. Yet another order was issued by the Executive Engineer for cancellation of the order dated 27.6.1980 and the order of retirement of the petitioner was issued on 30.1.1980. 3. After about three years and 2 months of his acquittal by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sawai Madhopur issued memorandum dated 19.7.1991 for holding an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The inquiry initiated on the basis of this memorandum has culminated in the order dated 23.12.1991 (Annexure/16) whereby the Executive Engineer has observed that the charge of misappropriation of Rs. 10, 486.64 has been proved against the petitioner and the charge of absconding from duty with effect from 14.2.1979 has also been proved against him. He, therefore, directed that in the context of the order dated 7.3.1980 issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, the petitioner should be treated as having been removed from service under Rule 16 of the said Rules. 4. In assailing the order of punishment, the petitioner has pleaded that the very initiation of inquiry against him vide memorandum dated 19.7.1991 was without jurisdiction. He was retired from service with effect from 31.1.1980, on attaining the age of superannuation and no inquiry could have been held against him after retirement even with the aid of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 5. In reply, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner wilfully absented from duty from 14.2.1979 after committing embezzlement of Rs. 7,322.24. It has been stated by them that the order of retirement of the petitioner was revoked by another order issued on 27.6.1980 and the order for removal from service was passed for the wilful absence from service. It has also been stated by the respondents that in the disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner, the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 10, 486.64 and that there was no illegality in the action taken by the respondents. It has also been stated by the respondents that in the disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner, the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 10, 486.64 and that there was no illegality in the action taken by the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not proceeded against departmentally because of the pendency of the criminal case which was registered on the basis of First Information Report dated 3.5.1979. He has been acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by being given benefit of doubt. and in such type of cases, the Departmental Authorities are not precluded from holding inquiry merely because of petitioner's acquittal. 6. From the record of the inquiry proceedings which has been placed before the Court, it can be reasonably said that the Departmental Authorities have dealt with the case of the petitioner in a most casual fashion. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension in February, 1979 and he was alleged to he not traceable in service till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.1980. However, final order was passed in the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner in the year 1979 and the Departmental Authorities allowed him to attain the age of superannuation. The one who issued the order of retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31.1.1980 woke up from slumber after passing of the order of retirement and then issued the order of termination under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. That was simply impermissible. No order of termination from service of a Government servant can legally be passed after his retirement. The only action which can be taken against a Government servant after his retirement is by way of passing an order under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. That Disciplinary Authorities did not undertake. Subsequently, the order of termination from service was set aside on 27.6.1980 and that order itself was revoked on 28.8.1980 and at the same time the order of retirement was also revoked. The action of the Executive Engineer in passing the order dated 28.8.1980 cancelling the order of retirement of the petitioner was also wholly without jurisdiction. Once the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, i.e. 55 years, he was bound to be retired. The action of the Executive Engineer in passing the order dated 28.8.1980 cancelling the order of retirement of the petitioner was also wholly without jurisdiction. Once the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, i.e. 55 years, he was bound to be retired. Even in the absence of a written order passed by competent Authority, the petitioner was bound to retire on the date he attained the age of superannuation. He could neither continue in service nor was he entitled to be paid salary after attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the action of the Executive Engineer in cancelling the order of his retirement was not only contrary to law, but was infructuous. 7. Even though the retirement of the petitioner did not absolve him of liability in respect of the incident which took place within four years prior to his retirement and it would have been perfectly legitimate and justified for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the petitioner with the aid of Rule 170(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, he did not bother to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of embezzlement of public funds. Although, according to the respondents, this was done because of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, but in my opinion, that could not have operated as a bar for initiation of disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner in respect of amount of Rs. 7,322.24 and in any case nothing prevented the competent Authority from taking action in respect of embezzlement of Rs. 10,486.64. This time again the Disciplinary Authority was totally remiss in the discharge of its duty. It allowed the time to lapse and initiated action against the petitioner after 10 years and 6 months of his superannuation. When the memorandum dated 19.7.1991 was issued, the petitioner could not have been proceeded against even with the help of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in respect of the allegation of embezzlement committed by the petitioner during the period of his service. No inquiry could possibly be initiated against him after 10 years and 6 months of the date of superannuation and, therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.12.1991 on the basis of the inquiry initiated against him on 19.7.1991 cannot but be treated as without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No inquiry could possibly be initiated against him after 10 years and 6 months of the date of superannuation and, therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.12.1991 on the basis of the inquiry initiated against him on 19.7.1991 cannot but be treated as without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Memorandum dated 19.7.1991 as well as the order dated 23.12.1991 are declared to be illegal and are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and submit it to the Director, Treasury & Accounts within a period of three months and the Director, Treasury & Accounts should make payment of arrears of pension and other retirement dues to the petitioner within a period of next two months. The amount of gratuity should be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of submission of certified copy of the order of this Court. If the amount of pension, gratuity etc. are paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, he shall not be allowed any interest till the date of payment. However, if the amount is not paid to him within the time specified in this order, the petitioner shall be paid interest at the rate of 12% for nonpayment with effect from the date of this order. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******