ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, the Letters Patent Appeal has been taken up together with the Writ Petition (S) No. 6937 of 2011 for hearing. 2. The Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.1.2013 passed in WP (S) No. 6937 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the Interlocutory Application No. 71 of 2013, filed by the appellants to vacate the stay. 3. The respondent-petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ challenging the charge-sheet and the departmental proceeding initiated by the appellants. 4. The respondent-petitioner has stated that he was appointed as "Munshi" on 19.3.1973 by the Ex-Owner of the New Selected Dhori Colliery, Dhori Area, District-Giridih and after nationalization of the said colliery, the respondent-petitioner along with other employees became the employees and staff of Central Coalfields Ltd. (Government Company) that the respondent-petitioner's name and parentage has been recorded and also appears in the records of Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, that he has been discharging his duties and functioning as Munshi that after lapse of 15 years, on the basis of some concocted report, Manager of the said colliery without making any enquiry, submitted a report to the police on 21.6.1998 alleging that the respondent-petitioner had impersonated some other person and accordingly an F.I.R. was drawn under Section 420 of the I.P.C. that the allegation was that the respondent-petitioner was working in the name of his brother namely, Rana Anand Prakash Singh whereas the respondent-petitioner is actually Rana Awadesh Singh, that the respondent-petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case by the judgment dated 30.3.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in G.R. Case No. 508 of 1988, corresponding to T.R. No. 1/91. It is stated that during the pendency of the said criminal case, by letter dated 13.7.1998 the appellants had called for an explanation from the respondent-petitioner as to why departmental proceeding should not be initiated and he be dismissed from service, to which he submitted a reply. Whereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated by the appellants by office order dated 2/4.8.1988. Whereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated by the appellants by office order dated 2/4.8.1988. That in view of the fact that two parallel proceedings were initiated for the same charges, the respondent-petitioner filed CWJC No. 1717 of 1988(R) for quashing the departmental proceeding whereupon the Hon'ble Court by order dated 6.10.1998 stayed the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal proceeding, that the respondent-petitioner was placed under suspension but after being acquitted in the criminal case, he filed an application to permit him to join his duty. Thereafter, the respondent-petitioner had filed CWJC No. 3370 of 1993(R) against the suspension. That he was allowed to join his duty by order dated 12.3.1994 of the General Manager, Dhori Colliery. 5. It is stated that again letter was issued for conducting departmental enquiry on the basis of a letter dated 26.5.2011 of one Indu Devi and the respondent-petitioner appeared and submitted his explanation but again on the same set of charge by letter dated 5.11.2011, the present departmental proceeding was initiated; that he was acquitted for the same charge in the earlier departmental proceeding accordingly, the aforesaid writ application was verified for quashing the charge and departmental proceeding. 6. Heard learned counsels. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent-petitioner retired on 31.3.2014. It was submitted that the Certified Standing Orders of the Central Coalfields Ltd. does not contemplate continuance of departmental proceedings in the event of retirement of non-executive of the Company. 7. It is fairly well settled that an employer can initiate a departmental proceedings and/or continue the same only in terms of the Rule framed by it. In Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited, Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 14 and 16 held as under:- "14. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that an employer can initiate a departmental proceedings and/or continue the same only in terms of the rules framed by it. It is also a well-settled law that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. 16. In absence of any rules, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee should not have been continued. The judgment of the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to be faulty. It is also a well-settled law that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. 16. In absence of any rules, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee should not have been continued. The judgment of the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to be faulty. We, however, keeping in view the subsequent documents brought before us by the appellant, would observe that, in future, in any other case or before any other authority, the Corporation would be at liberty to place all the relevant documents and to that effect the question of law raised by the appellant herein shall remain open." 8. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent while he was in service and since the respondent retired on 31.3.2014 and Certified Standing Orders of the Central Coalfields Ltd. does not contemplate continuance of the departmental proceeding after retirement of the employee, like the respondent, who is in the rank of Class-IV, the departmental proceeding should be deemed to be abated. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has submitted that petitioner has not been given his retiral benefits on his retirement from service and the appellants should be directed to pay the retiral dues and other benefits, as per his entitlements. It is not disputed by the appellants that the respondent-petitioner had remained in continuous service till his date of retirement on 31.3.2014. Considering that the Certified Standing Order of the Company does not stipulate or provide continuance of departmental proceeding against the employees of the rank of Munshi and the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against an interim order for refusal to vacate the stay order of the departmental proceeding and the departmental proceeding has abated on the retirement of the respondent-petitioner, accordingly the writ has become infructuous. 10. In view of the matter, the appellants are directed to ensure the payment of retiral dues and terminal benefits accruing to the respondent-petitioner in terms of rules and provisions of the Central Coalfields Ltd. subject to the condition that the respondent submits the application in the prescribed format alongwith requisite documents. 11. With the said direction, the Letters Patent Appeal as well as the Writ Petition are hereby disposed of.