Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The chargesheet contained as many as eight charges. For the self same charge a first information report was filed. It does not appear that the said first information report has resuited in filing of a chargesheet before any criminal court. The petitioner gave a reply to the chargesheet. 3. In the meantime the petitioner was put under suspension. On 22nd December, 2000, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer fixed 27th December, 2000 as the first date of enquiry. On 27th December, 2000, the petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer appeared before the Enquiry Officer. While the petitioner submitted his written explanation about the charges, the Presenting Officer did not bother to file any document or any written explanation or anything before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. In respect of the first charge, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that it was submitted by the Presenting Officer that handwriting expert can only tell as to whether the subject bills which were said to be false bear the signature of the petitioner or not. Handwriting Officer was not called by the prosecution and accordingly the matter stood concluded. In relation to the second charge which alleged that the petitioner maintained four cash books and not one cash book the Enquiry Officer accepted that there were four Drawing & Disbursing Officers dealing with four different Account Heads and accordingly there was requirement to maintain four cash books and one cash book could not be maintained. This contention was accepted before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer. The third charge was disbursement of Rs. 50,000/- but not entering such disbursement in the cash book. The petitioner contended that no cash book was maintained for discretionary grant and accordingly the same was not mentioned. The Enquiry Officer opined that separate cash book should have been maintained by the petitioner. The fourth charge was that in terms of the Rules in one Department only one advice register is required to be maintained but the petitioner maintained two registers. The defence of the petitioner was that it was not his duty to maintain advice register. It was the job of the Accountant. That was accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The fourth charge was that in terms of the Rules in one Department only one advice register is required to be maintained but the petitioner maintained two registers. The defence of the petitioner was that it was not his duty to maintain advice register. It was the job of the Accountant. That was accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The fifth charge was that some pages of one register have been torn. The defence of the petitioner was similar to Charge no. 4 and the same defence was accepted. The sixth charge was non-verification by the petitioner of disbursements during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 from the treasury. The defence of the petitioner that he was not obliged to do so. The same was accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The seventh charge was that once in a week T.V. Slips should have beep received by the petitioner but he did not do so. The petitioner contended that he had no authority to do so and such contention was accepted. The eighth charge was that the petitioner participated in preparation of forged documents to assist fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 34,67,464.48/-. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was that there is nothing on record which would suggest that the petitioner participated in forgery of any document. 4. Inasmuch as some of those charges were then under investigation in terms of the first information report, the Enquiry Officer did not conclude them and in relation to the remaining charges exonerated the petitioner. On the basis of this opinion of the Enquiry Officer which has got two parts, namely, the part, which deals with the matters pertaining to forgery of documents and putting or signatures in the bills etc, then under investigation in terms of the first information report, was left open and had not been concluded and the other part in respect of those charges where no investigation was required and the defence was that the petitioner was not obliged to maintain the concerned records, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that the petitioner stands exonerated of those charges. On the basis of this enquiry report, no prudent person under no circumstances could punish the petitioner but, however, unfortunately without even bothering to consider the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by an order dated 15th January, 2004 punished the petitioner by dismissal, after accepting the enquiry report in toto, and at the same time ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled to anything more than subsistence allowance during the period he remained under suspension until his termination. 5. Promptly thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking to challenge the said order. In the normal course, the petitioner would have attended the age of superannuation on 31 st December, 2004. However, as on that date, he remained a dismissed employee by reason of the said punishment order dated 15th January, 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 26th April, 2005 when this Court set aside the punishment order but at the same time permitted the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 6. By reason of the said order dated 26th April, 2005, which related back to the date of institution of the writ petition, in which the said order was passed, the order of termination dated 15th January, 2004 stood quashed i.e. stood obliterated and accordingly the petitioner became entitled to serve his post until his superannuation, of course, under suspension, inasmuch as the order of suspension was not interfered with by this Court when it passed its order dated 26th April, 2004.The petitioner in law, therefore, retired on 31st December, 2004 while on suspension. The suspension order was passed in view of lodgment of the first information report against the petitioner. 7. On 10th August, 2005 the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner and thereby purported to differ from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer. It was held out therein that inasmuch as a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner, some of the charges stand proved. It was held out that petitioner is guilty of certain charges without recording any reason contrary to the finding of the Inquiry Officer that very many accounts and books the petitioner was not responsible or obliged to maintain. It was held out that petitioner is guilty of certain charges without recording any reason contrary to the finding of the Inquiry Officer that very many accounts and books the petitioner was not responsible or obliged to maintain. Be that as it may, this notice having been issued in furtherance of the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement of the petitioner and there being no provision in the service rules that a disciplinary proceeding initiated during the service tenure of the petitioner shall continue after his retirement, in law, the same was of no effect. Despite that the petitioner gave a reply to the said notice but subsequent thereto an astonishing order has been passed by the disciplinary authority once again whereby and under it purported to invoke power under Rule 438 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 8. A look at Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules makes it abundantly clear that a disciplinary proceeding initiated against an employee before his retirement would not automatically stand converted into a proceeding under Rule 43B of the said Rules. A disciplinary proceeding initiated before retirement can be converted into a proceeding under the said Rule after retirement, provided intention to do so is notified. Without doing so the disciplinary proceeding which otherwise came to an end and became meaningless by reason of non-conclusion thereof during the service tenure of the petitioner, the petitioner could not be denied of his otherwise entitlements. Rule 43B directs that when a disciplinary proceeding has not been initiated against an employee during his service tenure, a proceeding under Rule 43B is required to be initiated against the employee before purporting to exercise any power under the said Rule. That itself suggests that Rule 43B permits a pending disciplinary proceeding to be converted into a proceeding under Rule 43B but the delinquent must be made aware that such steps are being taken. In the instant case, as above, before passing the order dated 10th September, 2005 the petitioner was not made aware that any step is being taken against him under Rule 43B or any step that is being taken in the disciplinary proceeding may result in empowering the disciplinary authority to exercise power under Rule 43B. 9. In those circumstances the order dated 10th September, 2005 being non est, the same is quashed. 10. 9. In those circumstances the order dated 10th September, 2005 being non est, the same is quashed. 10. Inasmuch as the order dated 15th January, 2004 was quashed by this Court, the status quo ante as available as on 15th January, 2004 stood revived and accordingly it was unjust to hold out that the petitioner was on leave without pay during the period between 15th January, 2004 and 31st December, 2004 i.e. from the date of the quashed dismissal order until the date of superannuation of the petitioner. 11. In law, the petitioner having been suspended in view of lodgment of a police case against him should be deemed to be on suspension until his retirement and he is entitled to have his period of suspension to be considered as on service or on suspension only after conclusion of the criminal proceeding. In the event in the criminal proceeding the petitioner is exonerated, Bihar Service Code mandates the disciplinary authority to give full salary to the petitioner during the suspension period. It is, however, surprising that a first information report lodged in 1996 has not been investigated in 10 years resulting in filing of a chargesheet. A person cannot be denied of his lawful rights by making him an accused and not proceeding in the matter with utmost expedition to prove that the accusations are correct. In those circumstances, in the event no charge is filed within three months from today, for all practical purpose, it must be deemed that only for the purpose of making an accusation against the petitioner, the first information report was filed against him and actually there was no sincerity to prove that the accusations are correct. In those circumstances it must be deemed that the petitioner stands absolved of all those accusations and accordingly soon thereafter but not later than one month therefrom the disciplinary authority shall decide in terms of the mandate contained in Section 97 of the Bihar Service Code whether the petitioner shall or shall not be entitled to full salary for the period he was kept under suspension. 12. The petitioner having retired, he is entitled to his pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and all other terminal/retiral/pensionary dues. Let ail those dues, if not, have already been settled and paid to the petitioner, be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. 12. The petitioner having retired, he is entitled to his pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and all other terminal/retiral/pensionary dues. Let ail those dues, if not, have already been settled and paid to the petitioner, be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In the event it is decided either to convert the disciplinary proceeding into a proceeding under Rule 43B or to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner, provisional pension and provisional gratuity must be settled and paid to the petitioner until such time the proceeding so converted or initiated reaches its finality. 13. This disposes of the writ petition.