SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. Heard Mr. S. K. Tewari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Since, common question of law and fact are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Through these writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the dismissal order impugned dated 14-3-1991 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition with all consequential benefits treating him in service throughout. 4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Subordinate Agriculture Service Group III and was confirmed on 1-4-1974 and then promoted to Cadre II. The petitioner joined at Pithoragarh on 5-10- 1985 and applied for leave for the period 24-4-1986 to 11-5-1986. On 31-12-1986, he was placed under suspension but he was transferred to Faizabad ignoring the suspension order. Since the petitioner was transferred to Faizabad hence disciplinary proceedings were not completed at Pithoragarh. The petitioner was again suspended on 25-3-1986 for committing embezzlement of certain amount. On transfer to Faizabad, he was again suspended on 9-1-1991 and was issued a charge-sheet dated 24-3- 1987 and the Deputy Director Agriculture. Soil Conservation, Faizabad was appointed Inquiry Officer, who was directed to complete the inquiry within three months. But no inquiry was held and to the utter surprise of the petitioner he was removed from service on 14-3-1991. 5. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was prosecuted under Section 409 IPC for committing embezzlement and ultimately was convicted thereunder. Since the recovery has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 11-10-1991 and the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31-7- 1998, no fresh inquiry can be initiated against him. 6. Through Writ Petition No. 4569 (SS) of 2004, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner as he has attained the age of superannuation on 31-7-1998. 7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that no disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by law nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case hence the dismissal order passed against the petitioner is in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. 8. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Ambika Prasad Srivastava v. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow & Ors. , 2004 (22) LCD 770, wherein it has been held that non-information about the date, time and place for holding the enquiry and non-supply of documents demanded by him, would vitiate the entire proceedings for violation of principles of natural justice. 9. In light of the observations cited above, the impugned order of dismissal dated 14-3-1991 is void ab initio, hence it is liable to be quashed. 10. Both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 14-3-1991 is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to pay the post-retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned Petitions allowed. .