JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner worked as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in Sheikhpura Block, known as Uchcha Prathmik Vidyalya, Kare since his appointment as a trained teacher from 23.2.1972. 3. When his salary was not paid, he had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 1228 of 2003. This Court directed the respondents (appellants) to pay salary and decide the other claims according to law. The above judgment has become final. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2004. He was not paid salary arrears and other retiral benefits. Neither any criminal or departmental proceedings were pending against him at the time of retirement. After retirement, the petitioner filed MJC No. 2409 of 2006 for compliance of the judgment in CWJC No. 1228 of 2003. On 14.9.2004, an order was passed stating that the certificate produced by the petitioner, on the basis of which appointments were made, was a forged and fabricated document and, therefore, he is not entitled to the arrears of salary and other retiral benefits. Again the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 20.9.2004. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment. It is not disputed that the petitioner had discharged his duties as Assistant Teacher till he retired on 30.6.2004. His appointment was made in 1972. After about a quarter of century, an order is passed stating that the certificate produced by him was a fabricated one. in fact, during his entire career, no criminal or departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After the retirement also, no departmental proceedings were initiated against him. It is in compliance with the directions in the earlier writ petition, the present order is passed to avoid contempt action. 4. The learned Single Judge held that since no departmental or criminal proceeding was taken against the writ petitioner during his service tenture, he is entitled to his entire arrears of salary withheld from 1999 till his retirement on 30.6.2004 as also his retirement benefits. It is submitted that now a criminal proceeding is on. The learned Single Judge held that criminal proceedings, if any, can be continued untrammeled by the observation in the judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal. It is submitted that now a criminal proceeding is on. The learned Single Judge held that criminal proceedings, if any, can be continued untrammeled by the observation in the judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal. The question of illegal appointment of the writ petitioner can be considered in a departmental proceeding. In any event, when no departmental or criminal proceeding was pending against the writ petitioner before his retirement, nor he was held responsible for any omission or commission, for which he could have been suspended in accordance with law during his service tenure, now after superannuation of the writ petitioner, no punishment order can be issued against the writ petitioner. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.