Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Chief Cane Development Officer, Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited. On 30.4.2008, he retired from service. A day before his retirement, a charge sheet dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) was issued, whereby it was proposed to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under the Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mills (Common Cadre) Service Rules, 1981 , as amended in 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Common Cadre Rules). In the said charge sheet, it was alleged that during his tenure as Officiating General Manager at the Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, the petitioner caused loss to the Mill on account of his negligence in taking necessary repairs of a Molasses tank, which resulted in the leakage of Molasses from the tank. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the said charge sheet dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that after the retirement of the petitioner, under the Common Cadre Rules, the respondents can not continue with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, as under the Common Cadre Rules, there is no provision to permit the employer to initiate or continue a departmental enquiry against an employee after his retirement. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court i.e. State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta, 1997(4) SCT 745 : AIR 1998 SC 159 and Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, 1999(2) Recent Services Judgments 375, and submitted that if there is no provision in the service regulations for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation, the employer has no authority for continuing the departmental enquiry against its employee after his retirement even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the employee. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Rule 4.15 of the Common Cadre Rules provides that if a matter is not covered by these Rules, then the same is to be adjudicated as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules. According to the learned counsel, the Punjab Civil Services Rules specifically empower the employer to initiate enquiry even against a retired employee, in case of causing loss on account of negligence of the employee. According to the learned counsel, the Punjab Civil Services Rules specifically empower the employer to initiate enquiry even against a retired employee, in case of causing loss on account of negligence of the employee. In view of the said specific Rules, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and the respondents were very much competent to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for causing loss to the respondent Mill on account of his negligence. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is conceded position that services of the petitioner were being governed by the Common Cadre Rules. The petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet on the ground that under the Service Rules, no departmental enquiry can be initiated or continued against a retired employee, as there is no such provision in the Common Cadre Rules. This contention is contrary to the factual position. Rule 4.15 of the Common Cadre Rules clearly provides that any matter which is not covered by these Rules would be adjudicated as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Since the Punjab Civil Services Rules empower the department to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee, in case loss is caused on account of negligence of the employee, it can not be said that there is no provision under the Service Rules which empowers the respondents to initiate or continue the departmental enquiry against the petitioner after his retirement. In view of this factual and legal position, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on the same allegations, earlier a show cause notice was issued, which was replied and thereafter, no action was taken, therefore, issuance of the impugned charge sheet on the same allegations is bad. In my opinion, this contention cannot be gone into at this stage, being disputed question of facts. However, it is always open to the petitioner to raise such contention, while replying to the impugned charge sheet. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.