JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, while working as District Education Officer, was served with two charge-sheets dated 8.6.95 & 18.5.94, respectively. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner retired from the service on 30.9.96. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the charge-sheets (Annexs. 1 & 2) and for directing the payment of all retiral benefits to the petitioner, with interest, as according to the petitioner, the enquiry cannot proceed further under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, after his retirement. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. 3. Mr. N.K. Maloo, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has stated at Bar that the petitioner did not submit any reply to both the charge sheets, served upon him. 4. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has not controverted it, but has conceded it at Bar. 5. Therefore, it is taken that the petitioner has hot filed replies to the charge-sheets, served upon him and has rushed to this court, for quashing them. 6. In the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kacker 1995 (7) SLR 430 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that a writ challenging the issue of charge sheet without submitting any reply to the charge sheet, is premature and the petition is liable to be dismissed.The petitioner has full opportunity to file to replies to the charge-sheets, raising all the points available to him, including those which have been taken in this petition and advanced by the learned counsel. The petition is, therefore, premature and deserves to be. dismissed and there is no need of going into the merit of the matter.Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******