JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the Manager of the Institution in question by which the services of the petitioner on the post of Adhoc Principal have been terminated. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there is an Institution by the name of Captain Badri Prasad Inter College, Milathu, Banda (hereinafter referred to as the Institution), which is duly recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as for the purposes of payment of salary under the Act of 1971. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer Civics in the Institution on 8.7.1969. The post of Principal of the Institution fell vacant when the incumbent Nathan Singh was transferred to another Institution. The petitioner being the senior most lecturer was appointed as officiating Principal by a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 25.7.2005. The petitioner continued to hold the post of officiating Principal and also drew salary as such and finally he attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2009. On 10.5.2006, the impugned order was passed by which the services of the petitioner on the post of officiating Principal were terminated on the ground of financial irregularities. Hence the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The submission of Shri Prakash Padia is that the petitioner was appointed as officiating Principal being the senior most lecturer and in any case his services were terminated by the order dated 10.5.2006 without holding any disciplinary proceedings or without giving any show-cause notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has also referred to Section 16-G (3 (a) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which provides that no Principal, Head-Master or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The impugned order does not indicate that any show-cause notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 6. The impugned order does not indicate that any show-cause notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 6. Shri Prakash Padia further submitted that at the time of admission this Court by its order dated 18.5.2006 had observed that the impugned order of termination had been passed without giving any show-cause notice or charge-sheet to the petitioner and in view thereof the order of termination had been stayed. In pursuance of the interim order of this Court the petitioner continued in service and finally retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2009. Shri Prakash Padia has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors OSFC, AIR 1999 SC 1841 , wherein the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of Regulation 44 Clause 3(c) of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 has held that in the regulation no specific provision has been made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. Shri Prakash Padia submits that the provisions of Section 16-G (3)(a) of the Act of 1921 also does not provide for continuation of any departmental proceedings after the superannuation of the Principal, Head-Master or Teacher (Including officiating Principal) and there is no provision for passing any penalty order against an officiating Principal after his superannuation. He further submits that Regulation 351-A as applicable to the Government servants under the Central Civil Services Regulation which provides for continuation of departmental proceedings and imposition of penalty by way of withholding pension or portion of pension with the sanction of the Governor does not apply to Principal, Head-Master and Teachers under the U.P. Intermediate Education 1921. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in Ravindra Singh Rathore v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and others, 2004 (1) AWC 310 , wherein this Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) has held in paragraphs 22, 23 and 26 as under: “22. The aforesaid decision was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra). The aforesaid decision was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 has held as follows: Learned Senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in T.S. Mankad v. State of Gujarat. It is true that that was a case of imposing a reduction in the pension and gratuity on account of unsatisfactory service of the employee as determined in an enquiry which was extended beyond the date of superannuation. But the above decision cannot help the respondent inasmuch as in that case there was a specific rule, namely Rule 241A of the Junagarh State Pension and Parwarish Allowance Rules, 1932, which enabled the imposition of a reduction in the pension or gratuity of a person after retirement. Further, there were rules in that case which enabled the continuance of departmental enquiry even after superannuation for the purpose of finding out whether any misconduct was established which could be taken into account for the purpose of Rule 241A. In the absence of similar provision with Regulations of the respondent Corporation, the above judgment of Mankad’s case cannot help the respondent. 23. As noticed hereinbefore there is no specific provision which empowers the continuance of a disciplinary proceedings against an employee, teacher and Principal of an aided educational institution in the State of U.P. Rules 30 and 32 of the 1964 Rules also do not empower for continuance of departmental enquiry once the person has retired. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings could not have continued and it lapsed. 24. ........... 25. ........... 26. Applying the principle laid down in Chandra Singh (supra) and Bharirathi Jena (supra) to the facts of the present case, in the absence of any specific provision in the 1964 Rules, the proceedings for continuation of enquiry after the retirement of the employee lapsed. “ 8. The judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh Rathore (supra) has been followed by this Court in Civil Misc. “ 8. The judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh Rathore (supra) has been followed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56128 of 2010 Ram Narain Rai v. State of U.P. and others, wherein also this Court has held as under: “Once fact of the matter is that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2010, then order of suspension is neither here nor there, inasmuch as once an incumbent had attained the age of superannuation thenneither under U.P. Act No. II of 1921 nor under U.P. Act No. V of 1982 there is any provision warranting continuance of disciplinary proceedings to be undertaken against an incumbent who has already attained the age of superannuation as per judgment in case of Ravindra Singh Rathore v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, 2004 (1) AWC 310 , wherein view has been taken after considering relevant provision, that disciplinary proceedings after the retirement cannot be continued in absence of any provision of law.” 9. In view of the above factual position and the position of law settled by the Supreme Court as well as the judgment of this Court, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.5.2006 is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner will be entitled to the entire consequential benefits including arrears of salary and other retiral benefits which shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the respondent No. 3-District Inspector of Schools, Banda. ——————