Order B.N. AGRAWAL & G.S. SHARMA, JJ. Heard the parties. 2. This application has been filed for quashing order dated 28th September, 1991 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar (Respondent no.2) contained in Annexure 7, whereby upon receipt of enquiry report from the Conducting Officer the following punishments have been awarded against the petitioner : (a) The petitioner shall get only subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. (b) A direction has been given to enter the punishment of warning in service record of the petitioner. (c) As sum of Rs.49,000/-was spent in construction of the school building without following the procedure prescribed in law, direction has been given to make enquiry and then to recover the amount from the petitioner. (d) One annual increment of the petitioner has been stopped, as on account of negligence of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.4210/- was defalcated by Clerk of the school. (e) As the petitioner made appointment of orderly peons beyond the sanctioned strength, direction has been given for recovery of the salary paid to them from the petitioner. 3. The short facts are that the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In the departmental proceeding the petitioner was served with charges and the Conducting Officer upon conclusion of enquiry submitted his report, which is contained in Annexure 4 to this writ application. Upon receipt of the report from the Conducting Officer, the order contained in Annexure 7 has been passed, whereby the aforesaid punishments have been awarded against the petitioner. Hence the writ application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that though in the writ application the aforesaid file punishments awarded to the petitioner have been challenged, but his client does not intend to challenge punishment nos.(a) and (b) awarded against him, therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into merit of these punishments awarded to the petitioner. 5. So far punishment no. (c) is concerned, from the impugned order it appears that a sum of Rs.49,000/-was spent over construction of school building, but in spending the same, the procedure prescribed was not followed, therefore direction has been given for making enquiry. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction so far no enquiry has been made. The petitioner has superannuated from service during pendency of the writ application. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction so far no enquiry has been made. The petitioner has superannuated from service during pendency of the writ application. Keeping in mind nature of this charge, we are of the view that no further enquiry is called for in relation to the aforesaid direction. 6. So far punishment no. (d) is concerned, it may be stated that in the enquiry report contained in Annexure 4, it has been categorically stated that the clerk concerned was solely responsible for defalcation of the said fund and so far the petitioner is concerned, the Conducting Officer specifically exonerated the petitioner from the said charge. Neither the Director in the impugned order has given any reason for differing with the enquiry report in this regard, nor learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State pointed out any such material on the basis of which it can be• said that the Director was justified in giving a direction for stopping one increment of the petitioner in relation to the same very charge. Therefore, in our view, the authority concerned was not justified in awarding such punishment. 7. In relation to the punishment no. (e) it may be stated that direction has been given for recovery of payments made to the two orderly peons from the petitioner, on account of the fact that the appointments were made beyond the sanctioned strength. Undisputedly the aforesaid orderly peons had worked pursuant to their appointment. As the State has taken work from them, they were entitled to payment of remuneration which State was bound to pay. Further it appears that appointments of those persons have been cancelled. In view of these facts, we are of the view that no further action should be taken in this regard against the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the writ application is allowed in part and punishment nos.(c), (d) and (e), referred to above, contained in Annexure 7 awarded against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 9. It has been stated that the petitioner has already retired, but because of impugned order contained in Annexure 7, post retirement benefits have not been paid to him. For the aforesaid reasons the writ application is allowed in part and punishment nos.(c), (d) and (e), referred to above, contained in Annexure 7 awarded against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 9. It has been stated that the petitioner has already retired, but because of impugned order contained in Annexure 7, post retirement benefits have not been paid to him. The Director, respondent no.2, is directed to see that entire post retirement benefits are paid to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before respondent no.2 10. With the aforesaid directions the writ application is disposed of. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.