Judgment B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a senior citizen seeks quashing and setting aside of a communication dated 17.12.2011 fixing date of hearing in Departmental inquiry, on the ground that the inquiry has been initiated more than four years after the alleged misconduct and inquiry could not have been initiated after 31.05.2011 i.e. his superannuation. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard Shri Thengre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents finally with their consent by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner, working at the relevant time as a Staff Officer, Wadsa Branch of Respondent No.1 – Regional Bank, was placed under suspension for gross misconduct and irregularities on 02.08.2007. The suspension order mentions that on 06.06.2007, the petitioner cleared a cheque in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- though it was not issued to Savings Bank account holder and though signature on it did not tally with the specimen signature of the account holder. Attention of the petitioner has also been invited to clauses 45 and 46 of Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (erstwhile Chandrapur, Gadchiroli Gramin Bank) Officers' and Employees' Service Regulations, 2010, in said suspension order. The Bank also lodged a First Information Report at Desaiganj Police Station on 08.09.2007 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In FIR, it is alleged that petitioner has misappropriated the sum of Rs.8,85,000/-. 4. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 16.08.2011 informed him about the superannuation and of the fact that inquiry proceedings could not have been completed before that. Regulation No.45(3) and (4) have been specifically quoted in the said order and he was informed that disciplinary proceedings would continue against him as if he continues in employment of the Bank but he would not be entitled to any pay or allowances except his own contribution to contributory provident fund. 5. On 16.08.2011, Bank served upon him Articles of charge. There are total seven charges of misappropriation or defalcations of huge amount mentioned therein. A fraudulent cash withdrawal of Rs. Ten lakh is also alleged. 6. 5. On 16.08.2011, Bank served upon him Articles of charge. There are total seven charges of misappropriation or defalcations of huge amount mentioned therein. A fraudulent cash withdrawal of Rs. Ten lakh is also alleged. 6. The petitioner in this background has pointed out a communication dated 17.12.2011 by which he was informed that inquiry will be conducted on 05.01.2012 at Chandrapur at 11.30 A.M. The petition has been filed on 28.11.2012 with a grievance as mentioned above and this Court on 08.11.2013 issued notice for final disposal. 7. In this background, Shri Thengre, learned counsel submits that initiation of inquiry after 31.05.2011 is contrary to service regulations and hence the charge sheet and further process undertaken upon it by the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside. He further states that misconduct alleged is of the year 2007 i.e. more than four years old on the date of issuance of charge sheet and on that account also the inquiry must fail. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank & Anr. vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, reported at (2007) 6 SCC 694 and State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, reported at (1996) 9 SCC 395 , to substantiate his contentions. He also urged that criminal prosecution filed against the petitioner is still going on and hence departmental inquiry cannot be permitted to continue. 8. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel, invited attention to affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents. He contends that events disclosed in paras 4 and 5 resulted in delay in issuing charge sheet, however, considering the magnitude of documents to be looked into and administrative problems, said time cannot be said to be unreasonable. He invites attention to pleadings in writ petition, particularly paras 8 & 12 to demonstrate that the petitioner was aware of all these developments. Lastly, the provisions of clause 45 of Service Regulations are pressed into service by him to show that as the petitioner was already under suspension, inquiry can be legally continued after his reaching age of superannuation. Because of language of said provision, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are attempted to be distinguished. 9. Lastly, the provisions of clause 45 of Service Regulations are pressed into service by him to show that as the petitioner was already under suspension, inquiry can be legally continued after his reaching age of superannuation. Because of language of said provision, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are attempted to be distinguished. 9. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have in para 3 of their reply affidavit stated that during the course of investigation and inquiry about the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- and a First Information Report in relation thereto, the Respondent – Bank discovered that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of Bank's funds to the tune of Rs.29,65,500/-. It is pointed out by them that investigation was carried out by one Shri B.V. Rao, Vigilance Officer sent on deputation by the Bank of India as Respondent No.1 – happens to be a sponsored Bank of Bank of India. Shri Rao had several other responsibilities. Considering the number of incidents to be verified and large number of accounts affected as also non availability of vital computer papers, balance books and old records, Shri Rao required considerable time to complete the exercise. Respondent No. 1 – Bank was earlier known as Chandrapur Gadchiroli Gramin Bank and on 01.08.2006, it was amalgamated to form Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On 15.12.2008, erstwhile three original Rural Banks viz., Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ratnagiri Sindhudurg Gramin Bank and Solapur Gramin Bank were amalgamated and the Bank by name Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank with its head office at Solapur came into existence. Because of these developments, several managerial decisions were held up due to change of administration and variation in set up as also shifting of records. Shri Rao, in the meanwhile was repatriated to Bank of India and new Officer viz., Shri Aradhey sent by Bank of India, joined as Vigilance Officer. He then proceeded further with the investigation and prepared the charge sheet. Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed this affidavit on 19.03.2013 and the petitioner has not thereafter filed any counter affidavit to dispute the facts mentioned therein. Even during arguments, the petitioner did not point out anything wrong with the details given above. In fact, pure simple delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings or any corresponding prejudice is not the bone of contention before us. 10. Even during arguments, the petitioner did not point out anything wrong with the details given above. In fact, pure simple delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings or any corresponding prejudice is not the bone of contention before us. 10. In his memo of writ petition, the petitioner has in para 8 pointed out First Information Report and registration of Crime No.75 of 2007. In para 12, he has stated that by issuing a memo on 31.08.2009, the petitioner's explanation about Statement of Allegations and Articles of Charge was called for. He has further pleaded that though the statement and articles were ready on 16.08.2009 and was within the Bank's knowledge on 31.08.2009, as is seen even from criminal prosecution, belated initiation of departmental inquiry after his retirement is bad. It is in this backdrop that we are considering the arguments of respective learned counsel. 11. The provisions of clause 45 of Service Regulations read as under : “45. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement – (1) An officer or employee who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation, shall be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose or continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. (2) The officer or employee who is under suspension shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period beyond the date of superannuation. (3) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceeding shall continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. (4) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated shall not receive any pay and/ or allowances after the date of superannuation and also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation, the normal retirement benefits such as encashment of privilege leave and Gratuity may be withheld till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding and passing of final order by the Competent Authority and the release of benefits shall be as per the final order of the Competent Authority.” 12. Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation, the normal retirement benefits such as encashment of privilege leave and Gratuity may be withheld till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding and passing of final order by the Competent Authority and the release of benefits shall be as per the final order of the Competent Authority.” 12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank & Anr. vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (supra) looks into Regulation 20(3)(iii) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulations, 1979. The said regulation stipulates that if departmental proceedings are initiated before superannuation of an officer of UCO Bank, the disciplinary proceedings can continue as if he was in service until its conclusion and passing of final order. The Hon'ble Apex Court states that the provision creates a legal fiction and, therefore, it needed to be given full effect but the scope and ambit of legal fiction also needed to be confined to the object and purport for which it has been created. After this finding in para 19, from para 20 onwards, it has looked into various precedents to note that a departmental proceeding ordinarily can be said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary inquiry, therefore, by itself is found to be not a valid ground for invoking clause 20 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulations. It is in this background, Hon. Court found that after superannuation, the charge sheet could not have been issued and inquiry could not have been initiated. Thus, it is the peculiar scheme of Regulation 20(3)(iii) which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 13. In the case of State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has looked into Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulations. It noted that proceedings not instituted while Government servant was on duty, either before retirement or during the employment, cannot be instituted except with the sanction of Governor and such proceedings, if initiated, cannot be in relation to a misconduct which has taken place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. It noted that proceedings not instituted while Government servant was on duty, either before retirement or during the employment, cannot be instituted except with the sanction of Governor and such proceedings, if initiated, cannot be in relation to a misconduct which has taken place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. It has also looked into explanation to this Regulation 351-A to note that departmental proceedings are deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against an officer are issued to him, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, from such date of suspension. If criminal proceedings are filed, the departmental proceedings are deemed to have been instituted on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge sheet is filed in criminal court. Thus, requirement of four years looked into by the Hon'ble Apex Court is on account of language of Regulation 351-A. Similarly, initiation of departmental inquiry looked into therein is also a concept regulated by the explanation thereto. This judgment, therefore, cannot be said to have laid down law which has got bearing on the present subject matter. 14. Regulation 45 with which we are concerned is in different parts. Sub-clause (3) stipulates that an officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but disciplinary proceeding can continue. This regulation nowhere points out when disciplinary proceeding can be said to have been initiated and even if normal rule that such proceedings are initiated by serving a charge sheet is applied, the situation cannot be saved by the petitioner by this provision. Though, here charge sheet is about three months after his superannuation, his case is covered by clause (1) of Regulation 45. That clause lays down that an officer under suspension on a charge of misconduct attaining the age of superannuation is deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation, conclusion and issuance of final order in such proceedings. Thus, clause (1) does not depend on the concept of initiation of departmental inquiry. The petitioner is under suspension since 02.08.2007. The order of suspension itself carries reference of misconduct dated 06.06.2007 whereby a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- was cleared by the petitioner though it was not issued by the account holder. Thus, clause (1) does not depend on the concept of initiation of departmental inquiry. The petitioner is under suspension since 02.08.2007. The order of suspension itself carries reference of misconduct dated 06.06.2007 whereby a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- was cleared by the petitioner though it was not issued by the account holder. This suspension order also carries a reference to provisions of Regulations 45 and 46. There existed a FIR and a criminal prosecution since 08.09.2007 under Sections 409, 407, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same is still pending. In his petition, the petitioner has also pointed out the issuance of memo dated 31.08.2009 calling for his explanation and statement of allegations and articles of charge comprising charge sheet dated 16.08.2009. All these events, in any case are prior to his superannuation. 15. The language of Regulation No.45, therefore, does not enable us to hold that merely because charge sheet is served upon the petitioner after 31.05.2011, the departmental inquiry lapses. On the contrary, under clause (1) thereof, the petitioner, already under suspension on a charge of misconduct, continues to be in service for the purposes of completion of departmental proceedings. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that there cannot be any departmental inquiry against the petitioner after his superannuation. The bar of four years pressed into service by Shri Thengre, learned counsel is only on account of requirement of Regulation 351-A, which was applicable to the employment of the respondent in judgment of the Hon. Apex Court cited by him and already considered supra. Hence, that argument is not relevant before us. Except for pointing out that criminal prosecution is still pending, the petitioner has not attempted to demonstrate why simultaneously the departmental inquiry proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. It is not an axiom that in all cases where criminal prosecution is pending, departmental inquiry must be stayed. There is no such blanket proposition of law. Hence, we are also not in a position to appreciate this half hearted effort. 16. We, therefore, find no case made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.