Judgment (R.M. Borde, J. ) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Teacher with respondent no. 5 – management, is assailing decision by the management to hold an enquiry against him and consequential order of termination which came to be issued on 28.09.2011 during the pendency of petition. Petitioner is also seeking direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to prepare and finalise pension papers and submit the same to the office of respondent nos. 2 and 3 so as to facilitate petitioner to avail of pensionary benefits. Petitioner also seeks directions against respondent nos. 2 and 3 to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits on receipt of pension papers from respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is not controverted that petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher in the school operated by respondent no. 5 and was permitted to retire on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2010. As per the contentions of petitioner, though respondent – management contends that petitioner has been placed under suspension, the order of suspension has not been served upon him. It is however not disputed that statement of charges was not served on petitioner prior to the date of superannuation and those were served only on 08.10.2010. Respondent – management proceeded to appoint enquiry committee and on receipt of report inflicted punishment of termination of services against petitioner by order dated 28.09.2011, long after retirement of petitioner on attaining age of superannuation. It cannot be controverted that enquiry was initiated and statement of charge was served on 08.10.2010 only after retirement of petitioner on attaining age of superannuation. According to petitioner, since respondent no. 5 proceeded to initiate departmental enquiry against him and ultimately inflicted punishment of termination of services only after his retirement, the whole proceeding of enquiry and consequential order of termination is vitiated since such action does not have sanction of law. 4. According to petitioner, since respondent no. 5 proceeded to initiate departmental enquiry against him and ultimately inflicted punishment of termination of services only after his retirement, the whole proceeding of enquiry and consequential order of termination is vitiated since such action does not have sanction of law. 4. The term employee has been defined in section 2(7) of the MEPS Act which reads thus: (7) “employee” means any member of the teaching and non-teaching staff of a recognised school [ and includes Assistant Teacher (Probationary)]; The term ‘Teacher’ is defined in section 2(26) of the Act which reads thus: (26) “teacher” means a member of the teaching staff, and includes the Head of a school; Categories of employees are provided for in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1981 which read thus: 10. Categories of Employees : (1) Employees shall be permanent or non-permanent employees may be either temporary or on probation. (2) A temporary employee is one who is appointed to a temporary vacancy for a fixed period. Section 4(6) of the Act provides that no employee of a private school shall be suspended, dismissed or removed or his services shall not be otherwise terminated or he shall not be reduced in rank by the Management, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made in that behalf. The procedure for inflicting major penalties is provided under Rule 33 of the MEPS Rules which provides thus : 33. Procedure for inflicting major penalties : (1) If an employee is alleged to be guilty of [any of the grounds specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 28] and if there is reason to believe that in the event of the guilt being proved against him, he is likely to be reduced in rank or removed from service, the Management shall first decide whether to hold an inquiry and also to place the employee under suspension and if it decides to suspend the employee, it shall authorise the Chief Executive Officer to do so after obtaining the permission of the Education Officer or, in the case of the Junior College of Education and Technical High Schools, of the Deputy Director. Suspension shall not be ordered unless there is a prima facie case for his removal or there is reason to believe that his continuance in active service is likely to cause embarrassment or to hamper the investigation of the case. If the Management decides to suspend the employee, such employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) stand suspended with effect from the date of such order. (2) If the employee tenders resignation while under suspension and during the pendency of the inquiry such resignation shall not be accepted. (3) An employee under suspension shall not accept any private employment. (4) The employee under suspension shall not leave the headquarters during the period of suspension without the prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer. If such employee is the Head and also the Chief Executive Officer, he shall obtain the necessary prior approval of the President. (5) An employee against whom proceeding have been taken on criminal charge or who is detained under any law for the time being in force providing for preventive detention shall be considered as under suspension for any period during which he is under such detention or he is detained by police for judicial custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours or is undergoing imprisonment, and he shall not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances for such period until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is relieved from detention and is in a position to rejoin duty after producing documentary proof of his release (otherwise than on bail) or acquittal, as the case may be. An adjustment of his pay and allowances for such periods shall be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the employee being acquitted of charge or detention being held by the Court to be unjustified. (6) After the result of the criminal prosecution, a coy of the judgment shall be obtained by the Management and if the judgment is one of conviction for the charges and if any inquiry is also initiated by the Management against the employee on the basis of the same charges, it shall not be necessary to proceed with the inquiry on the same charges and the Management shall take action to terminate the services of the employee. The Management shall not however pass any order till the period upto which the employee is entitled to prefer an appeal or revision application to the higher Court against the conviction by the lower Court is over. If the appeal or revision application is preferred the Management shall not take any action till the conviction is finally confirmed by the higher Court. When the judgment in the criminal case appeal or revision application is one of the acquittal, the Management shall consider in the light of the judgment whether it is necessary to institute or proceed with the inquiry. If the Management agrees that the acquittal is justified, it may drop the inquiry by certifying that it agrees with the findings of the Court. If the Management does not agree with the findings, it may proceed with the inquiry and inflict proper punishment. In the instant matter the petitioner who was allowed to retire on attaining age of superannuation can not be termed as ‘employee’ within definition of term as provided under section 2(7) of the Act. He also on his retirement cannot be termed as ‘teacher’ within meaning of definition provided under section 2(26) of the Act. A retired employee is not included in categories of employees as provided under Rule 10 of Rules of 1981. As provided under Rule 35(1) of the Rules an employee functioning in school can only be proceeded departmentally and proceedings against an retired employee initiated after he is allowed to retire cannot be permitted. There is no sanction under the Act or the Rules permitting the management to commence and continue and inflict punishment in departmental proceedings against a retired employee, after the institution / management permits him to retire on attaining age of superannuation. 5. The employee functioning in private school can be put under suspension in accordance with Rule 35(1) of the Rules of 1981 only with prior approval of the appropriate authority mentioned in Rule 33. Appropriate authority mentioned in Rule 33 is the Education Officer, so far as present petitioner is concerned. In the instant matter, it has not been brought to our notice that alleged suspension of petitioner is with prior approval of the Education Officer. Appropriate authority mentioned in Rule 33 is the Education Officer, so far as present petitioner is concerned. In the instant matter, it has not been brought to our notice that alleged suspension of petitioner is with prior approval of the Education Officer. No record is also brought before us to substantiate contention of the management that the employee was put under suspension prior to the date of retirement and that order was served upon him while he was in employment. Admittedly, statement of charges was served on the employee after he was permitted to retire on attaining age of superannuation. As prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1981, if an employee is alleged to be guilty of any of the grounds specified under Rule 28(5) and if there is any reason to believe that in the event of guilt being proved against him he is likely to be reduced in rank or removed from service, the management shall have to first decide whether to hold inquiry and also to place the employee under suspension. Decision to suspend an employee can be taken as contemplated by Rule 33(1) of the Rules on being satisfied that an employee needs to answer charges which provide for penalty of reduction in rank or removal from service. In the instant matter, it has not been brought to our notice that the management has taken decision to hold departmental enquiry against petitioner in respect of charges which provide for punishment of reduction in rank or removal from service prior to the date of his retirement. Since the management has proceeded against the employee i.e. petitioner only after he was allowed to retire on attaining age of superannuation, the whole proceeding and the consequential action of punishment of removal from service is rendered illegal and is thus liable to be quashed and set aside. Writ petition thus deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. 6. The proceeding of inquiry initiated against the petitioner by respondent – management and consequential order of termination issued on 28.09.2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to prepare and finalise pension papers of petitioner and submit the same in the office of respondent nos. 2 and 3 within a period of three months from today. On receipt of papers from respondent nos. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to prepare and finalise pension papers of petitioner and submit the same in the office of respondent nos. 2 and 3 within a period of three months from today. On receipt of papers from respondent nos. 4 and 5, the same shall be processed and forwarded by respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the office of Accountant General, Nagpur, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Respondent nos.2 to 5 are directed to sanction and release monthly salary of petitioner from April 2009 to June 2010 and disburse the amount within a period of four months from today. rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.