ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashment of charge sheet/memorandum dated 20th September, 1991 (Annexure-A) and to quash disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge memorandum dated 20th September, 1991. Later on, on account of subsequent events, the petition has been amended and the petitioner has sought the quashment of the order of punishment, dated 15-4-1997 (Annexure-H) and further sought relief to direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with compound interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner has further prayed that interest be paid to him on the leave salary of Rs. 63,743.60 for the period from 1-10-1990 to 8-8-1997 @ 18% compound interest per annum. The unfolded facts are that the petitioner was an employee of Coal India Limited (respondent No. 2) and retired from his service with effect from 30-9-1991 on attaining the age of superannuation. He retired from the post of Director (Technical) in Northern Coalfields Limited and was posted at Singraull at the time of his last date of his service. In August, 1977 the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Mining Engineer and was functioning as General Manager in Kusunda area. In the year 1981 he was promoted to the post of Chief Mining Engineer. Later on, in the year January, 1986 again he was promoted on the post of Chief General Manager and finally he was promoted in December, 1987 on the post of Director (Tech.), this post was being held by the petitioner till he retired on 30-9-1991. According to the petitioner, his entire service career remained unblemished and he worked up to the mark with an excellent career and after playing successful inning of his service career, he was spot-lessly retired on 30-9-1991. The petitioner after his retirement received a charge sheet on 4-10-1991 (Annexure-A). It be seen that the charge memorandum is dated 20-9-1991 i.e. 10 days earlier to the date of the petitioner's retirement. The petitioner after his retirement received a charge sheet on 4-10-1991 (Annexure-A). It be seen that the charge memorandum is dated 20-9-1991 i.e. 10 days earlier to the date of the petitioner's retirement. On going through the charge-sheet, it is revealed that while working as General Manager in Kusunda area during 27-8-1977 to 2-7-1978 i.e. near about 15 years prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner had committed certain irregularities which according to the management amounted to gross mis-conduct and, therefore, the aforesaid memorandum was issued to the petitioner under Rule 29 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 applicable to the executives of Coal India Limited. Refuting the charges, the petitioner submitted the representation on 14-10-1991 (Annexure/B) raising an objection therein that proceedings cannot be initiated against him after his retirement. The respondent on going through the reply/representation of the petitioner appointed respondent No. 3 as enquiry officer to conduct the departmental enquiry. Since the departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner, after his retirement the retiral dues like gratuity, leave encashment etc. was withheld. After the memorandum and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition before this Court on 30-4-1992 and requested the authorities that since writ petition has been filed, the disciplinary action be stayed till the disposal of writ petition. This prayer was made by the petitioner by submitting an application dated 18-1-1996 (Annexure-F) addressed to Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi. The same prayer was also made to Minister of Coal, Government of India on 18-1-1996 (Annexure-G). According to the petitioner, without considering his reply vide order dated 15-4-1997 (Annexure-H) the respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of 100% gratuity. Against the said order, the petitioner submitted a memorandum to Minister for Coal on 28-4-1997 (Annexure-I) but no order has been passed on it. As per averments made in the petition, the leave salary of Rs. 63,743.60 which was due from 1-10-1991 to 8-8-1997 was paid on 8-8-1997 and for no reason, the petitioner was deprived to reap the fruits of leave salary for a years together. It has been contended by Shri R.N. Shukla, learned senior counsel that after the petitioner was retired on 30-9-1991, no departmental inquiry could have been initiated and conducted against him. It has been contended by Shri R.N. Shukla, learned senior counsel that after the petitioner was retired on 30-9-1991, no departmental inquiry could have been initiated and conducted against him. According to learned senior counsel since the relationship of employer and employee ceased after the retirement of the petitioner, therefore the enquiry proceeding and order of punishment imposed are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. The other contention which has been raised by learned senior counsel is that the charge-sheet relevant to certain incident which is said to have been taken place during the period 27-8-1977 to 2-7-1978 i.e. more than 15 years ago and there is no justification to issue charge-sheet after such a long delay of 15 years to the said incident, particularly when three promotions were given to the petitioner. It has also been putforth by learned Senior counsel that the memorandum of charge-sheet has been issued under the Coal India Ltd. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 and according to this rule it applies only to the employees of Coal India Ltd. Since the petitioner did not remain employee after the retirement, therefore, initiation of departmental enquiry and imposing punishment is ab initio void. Shir. P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel, by combating the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that merely because the petitioner stood retired on 30-9-1991, there is no legal bar in holding the departmental enquiry of a misconduct which was committed by the petitioner. According to learned senior counsel for the respondents under the definition of "employee" as envisaged in the Coal India Limited's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, the employees who have retired would also be included in the definition and, therefore, the inquiry was validly conducted and the punishment was rightly passed. Smt. Indira Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the enquiry officer also argued in support of the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. Undisputedly the petitioner was retired from the post of Director (Tech) on 30-9-1991. This fact is also not disputed that in August, 1977 he was posted as Additional Chief Mining Engineer and was functioning as General Manager at Kusunda. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. Undisputedly the petitioner was retired from the post of Director (Tech) on 30-9-1991. This fact is also not disputed that in August, 1977 he was posted as Additional Chief Mining Engineer and was functioning as General Manager at Kusunda. Thereafter, he was promoted in the year 1991 on the post of Chief Mining Engineer and again promoted as Chief General Manager in January, 1986 and further promoted in December, 1987 on the post of Director (Tech.). At the time of his retirement, petitioner was serving on this post. The memorandum and charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner of some incident during the period 27-8-1977 to 2-9-1978. This is also no more in dispute that charge-sheet was served on 4-10-1991 i.e. after more than 14 years. The very important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that after the period in between 27-8-1977 to 2-9-1978, when it is said that the petitioner committed misconduct, three promotions of very high and reputed posts were given to him and, therefore, no enquiry of the misconduct even if it was committed 14 years ago, could have been initiated and the punishment could not have been imposed. In the case of J.D. Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others, 1984 JLJ 158 (SC) confidential reports of a judicial officer was considered by the High Court. The High Court relied some adverse remarks relating to year 1959-60. However, thereafter the judicial officer was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 8th January, 1974 and was also confirmed w.e.f. 29th November, 1974. In that situation, the Apex Court observed that any adverse report in respect of an earlier period unless it had some connection with any event which took place subsequently, cannot form a basis for forming an opinion about the work of the appellant and, therefore, the decision of the High Court retiring compulsory to the said judicial officer was set aside, as it was based on the entries that were made about 20 years before the date on which the decision was taken particularly when the officer concerned was promoted subsequently. The Apex Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement. The Apex Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement. In the present case also, it is being said that petitioner committed certain misconduct during 27-8-1977 to 2-7-1978, however, no action was taken and after this period, as mentioned hereinabove, three promotions of very high status were given to the petitioner. Thus, the case of J.D. Shrivastava (supra) squarely covers the fate of the present case. In the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another, 1990 JLJ 319 , the departmental enquiry was initiated after 12 years and no such explanation for the delay was shown. In that situation, the Apex Court held that it would be an unfair to the employee and it would be unfair to permit to a departmental enquiry to be proceeded. In a later decision in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan, , the same principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court. There is sufficient force in the contention of Shri Shukla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after lapse of 14 years and that too when the petitioner is retired, he has become completely handicapped in order to collect the material and to disprove the charges. The case of Bani Singh (supra) is also squarely applicable in the present factual scenario. In the present case also after more than 14 years, the employer thought to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner, which according to me is not only unfair but is also contrary to the service jurisprudence. In the present case no explanation much less than satisfactory explanation, has been given by the respondents that why after 14 years, the disciplinary action is being taken particularly when the petitioner has been provided three promotions of very high and reputed posts of the Company. Thus, it is obvious that the action is altogether unfair and mala fide. There is sufficient merit in the contention of Shri Shukla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the retirement of the petitioner, no disciplinary action and departmental enquiry could have been initiated against him and the issuance of the charge-sheet, the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of punishment directing to withhold 100% gratuity is without jurisdiction. There is sufficient merit in the contention of Shri Shukla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the retirement of the petitioner, no disciplinary action and departmental enquiry could have been initiated against him and the issuance of the charge-sheet, the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of punishment directing to withhold 100% gratuity is without jurisdiction. As soon as an employee is retired after attaining the age of superannuation, the relationship of employer and employee are ceased and the respondents cannot extend services with a view to inflict punishment. It would not be open to the respondent to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner who was no more in service and therefore the charges (Annexure-A), disciplinary proceeding and the punishment order Annexure H dated 15-4-1997 is Coram non judice. In this context, it would be profitable to rely the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirti Bhushan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . In this case, the Government servant during the pendency of departmental enquiry was permitted to retire on invalid pension on medical grounds even before he attained the age of retirement. The subsequent order of Government, dismissing him from service, was held by the Apex Court to be illegal because the order of retirement on medical ground became effective and final and it was further held that the competent authority was not open to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding and to pass an order of punishment. A similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in the case of B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1978 SC 1109 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that appointing authority has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against Government servant who had effectively retired. In the case of The State of West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, the service of an employee was retained for the purpose of conducting a departmental enquiry and extension of service beyond retirement for that purpose, was held to be illegal. It has been vehemently contended by Shri P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel that the memorandum of charge (Annexure-A) is dated 20-9-1991 and on this date the petitioner was very well in the employment and therefore there was no legal bar in holding the departmental enquiry since relationship of employer and employee was subsisting between the parties. It has been vehemently contended by Shri P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel that the memorandum of charge (Annexure-A) is dated 20-9-1991 and on this date the petitioner was very well in the employment and therefore there was no legal bar in holding the departmental enquiry since relationship of employer and employee was subsisting between the parties. The argument though appears to be quite attractive, but on deeper scrutiny, is found to be devoid of any substance. True, the date of memorandum of charge is 20-9-1991, but it was served on petitioner on 4-10-1991 i.e. after his retirement. It has been contended by Shri Nair that the charge sheet was sent by registered post but, it is equally true that it was not served upon the petitioner. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others, 1998(11) CLR 849, the Apex Court while facing the same situation held that the charge-sheet which was sent to the employee by registered post returned with the cover with postal endorsement "not found" it was held that this cannot be legally treated to have been served. It would be condign to make emphasis of para 4 of the said decision of the Apex Court which reads thus: 4. So far as the service of show cause notice is concerned, it also cannot be treated to have been served. Service of this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by publication in a newspaper without making any earlier effort to serve him personally by tendering the show cause notice either through the office peon or by registered post. There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper in which the show-cause notice was published was a popular newspaper which was expected to be read by the public in general or that it had wide circulation in the area or locality where the respondent lived. The show-cause notice cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be held to have been served on the respondent. In any case, since the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad for the reason that the charge sheet was not served, all subsequent steps and stages, including the issuance of the show-cause notice would be bad. The show-cause notice cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be held to have been served on the respondent. In any case, since the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad for the reason that the charge sheet was not served, all subsequent steps and stages, including the issuance of the show-cause notice would be bad. Thus, by placing reliance on the decision of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra), it cannot be said that the charge sheet which was sent by registered post to the petitioner and which was returned back as unserved, could be treated as a valid service of the charge-sheet. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika, `, the Apex Court laid down the law of land that merely passing of an order of dismissal is not effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. It was further held that it would not take effect from the date on which the order is actually written but would be effective only after it is communicated to the officer concerned. If the ratio decidendi of the case of Amar Singh Harika (supra) is tested on the anvil of the present factual scenario, it would reveal that merely because on the memorandum of charge (Annexure-A) dated 20th September, 1991 has been mentioned, is not relevant and would not be an effective date but that date would be relevant on which it was served on the petitioner. Since it was served on 4-10-1991 i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it was served on petitioner on 20-9-1991 or any other date before his retirement. Thus, the contention of Shri Nair has no merit and is rejected that the charge sheet is dated 20-9-1991 and on that day the relationship of employer and employee was subsisting between the parties. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not remain employee in terms of Coal India Limited's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 is now taken into consideration. In the return, it has been set forth by respondents that the definition of 'employee' is given in Rule 3(1)(f) of the Coal India Limited's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 and it would apply for the limited purpose of disciplinary proceeding. In the return, it has been set forth by respondents that the definition of 'employee' is given in Rule 3(1)(f) of the Coal India Limited's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 and it would apply for the limited purpose of disciplinary proceeding. Rule 34.2 of the said rules has been reproduced in the return which reads thus:- Departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall, after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceeding and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. Even if it is held that departmental proceedings were instituted before retirement, since it has been initiated after a long unexplained delay of 14 years, according to me, for no practical purpose it could have been allowed. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of punishment Annexure H withholding 100% gratuity cannot be allowed to stand and the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the gratuity amount of petitioner forthwith with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from today. Similarly, the leave salary Rs. 63,643.60 of petitioner which was unnecessarily withheld for years together, the petitioner is entitled to interest on it @ 9% per annum till it was paid. Let the amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month failing which the rate of interest shall be enhanced and shall be paid @ 12% per annum. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. Counsel fee, Rs. 2000/-, if pre-certified. Final Result : Allowed