JUDGMENT : N. W. SAMBRE, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, making mainly the following prayers : “B. The respondent no. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to take appropriate departmental action against the guilty officer i.e. the respondent no.3 as per the inquiry report dated 05/05/2011 submitted by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Osmanabad C. The respondent no.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to initiate the criminal action against the respondent no.3 as the respondent no.3 in collusion with the respondent no.4 had suppressed the complaint dated 05/09/2007 and caused delay in lodging F.I.R. Against the respondent no.4." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she had attempted to lodge a complaint against respondent no.4 on 5th September, 2007, as according to her, he has committed repeated rape on her. 4. According to the petitioner, respondent no.3, who was in-charge of the police station, with an intention to save respondent no. 4, had not registered an offence immediately after she presented a complaint on 5th September, 2007, resulting into causing an inquiry in the matter as petitioner preferred complaint against respondents no.3 and 4 to respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Police, She has further alleged that after her written complaint dated 7th March, 2008 lodged with respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad, an inquiry was conducted through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Osmanabad which resulted in registering of an offence against respondent no4. 5. According to the petitioner, respondent no.3, with an apprehension of action against him and with a view to cover his misconduct of failure to take cognizance of her complaint dated 5th September, 2007, had taken her signatures on blank paper so as to treat the same as first information report on 29th April, 2008. In the inquiry conducted in the matter, it has come on record that the petitioner had filed a complaint on 5th September, 2007 and respondent no.3 was negligent in taking cognizance of the same as is reflected in the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Osmanabad on 5th May, 2011. Based on the same, the petitioner has come out with the prayers quoted herein above. 6. Perusal of the prayer of the petitioner reflects that she has sought two-fold relief. namely. Based on the same, the petitioner has come out with the prayers quoted herein above. 6. Perusal of the prayer of the petitioner reflects that she has sought two-fold relief. namely. (a) To initiate departmental action against respondent no.3 in the wake of inquiry report dated 5th May, 2011 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Osmanabad; (b) Criminal action be initiated against respondent no.3 as he has acted in collusion with respondent no.4 in suppressing the complaint of the petitioner dated 5th September, 2007, with an intention to save respondent no.4 from the clutches of law. 7. So far as the first prayer of the petitioner in regard to initiation of the departmental inquiry against respondent no.3 is concerned, respondents have filed affidavit in reply on record stating that respondent no.2 Superintendent of Police, vide communication dated 19th/20th March, 2013, had forwarded the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Osmanabad, dated 5th May, 2011 to the Director General of Police, Mumbai, recommending initiation of departmental inquiry against respondent no.3. The said communication of respondent no.2 to the Director General of Police is placed on record. Further affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no.2, pointing out that after receipt of the proposal referred supra, forwarded by respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Police, the Director General of Police has passed an order on 5th July, 2013 and observed that, having regard to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short "Pension Rules"), no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against respondent no.4 and as such, has closed the matter. It is reflected in the communication dated 5th July, 2013 issued for respondent no.1 State, that respondent no.3 stood retired from service on 30th November, 2012 and alleged event of misconduct took place in 2007, i.e. almost four years prior to the date of retirement of respondent no.3. Hence, in view of provisions of Rule 27 (2) (b) (ii) of Pension Rules, the disciplinary proceedings can not be initiated. 8. Though the communication dated 5th July, 2013 is placed on record, the petitioner has not taken steps to challenge the same by amending the present petition. Hence, in view of provisions of Rule 27 (2) (b) (ii) of Pension Rules, the disciplinary proceedings can not be initiated. 8. Though the communication dated 5th July, 2013 is placed on record, the petitioner has not taken steps to challenge the same by amending the present petition. Be that as it may, perusal of the provisions of Rule 27 (2) (b) (ii) of the Pension Rules discloses that departmental proceedings, if not instituted against a Government servant while he was in 'service, such proceedings can be initiated against him subsequently, provided there is a sanction from the Government and such proceedings shall not be in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years before such institution. In the present case, the alleged incident is of 5th September, 2007 and departmental proceedings are not instituted against respondent no.3 till this date. Undisputably, no articles of charge are issued to respondent no.3 as provided under Rule 27 (6) (a). It is not in dispute that respondent no.3 has retired from the State Government service with effect from 31st November, 2012 and the incident in question and the accusation against respondent no.3 is of more than four years old. As such, in our opinion, the decision of the Director General of Police, not to initiate departmental proceedings against respondent no.3, in the wake of provisions of Rule 27 (2) (b) (ii) of the Pension Rules, is in conformity with the same. Support can be drawn to the above proposition from the judgment of this Court in the case of Ratnakar Bhagwanrao vs. District and Sessions Judge, reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 312: [2009(1) ALL MR44]. 9. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner in regard to initiation of criminal action against respondent no.3 is concerned, the facts of the present case reflect that respondent no.3 has acted in negligent manner in dealing with the complaint of the petitioner, in the matter of registration of first information report against respondent no.4. The inquiry conducted under the orders of respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Police by Sub-Divisional Police Officer in clear terms reflects the misconduct of respondent no.3 in the matter of registration of offence of rape against respondent no.4 as by not registering the offence immediately after receipt of complaint on 5th September, 2007, respondent no.3 has tried to shield respondent no.4 from the clutches of law. 10. In our opinion, having regard to the report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, dated 5th May, 2011, the prayer of the petitioner insofar as registration of offence against respondent no.3 is concerned, the same needs consideration. 11. In that view of the matter, we pass following order :- Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to examine the conduct of respondent no.3 and if satisfied issue appropriate directions at his level to the concerned Officer to register an offence against respondent no.3 in the light of the report dated 5th May, 2011 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, soon after receipt of writ of this order. Rule made absolute in terms of above directions. Petition partly allowed.