ORDER : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenging the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice and charge sheet Annexure P/3 dated 27.11.2013 and to quash the same with further direction to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner i.e. contributory provident fund and other amount which has been withheld by the respondents on his retirement, this petition has been preferred. 2. From the pleadings of the petition, the facts unfolded are that petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2012 as Dy. Director, Jila Panchayat, Jabalpur, though he was an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board (hereinafter be called as Board). After about 11 months on attaining the age of superannuation a show cause notice along with the charge sheet and imputation of allegation dated 27.4.2013 was issued as per Annexure P/3 asking the defence of petitioner why the departmental enquiry should not be initiated. The petitioner submitted preliminary objection Annexure P/5 stating that after retirement departmental enquiry could not be continued as per Madhya Pradesh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Viniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Viniyam). It is contended that under Clause 4(5) of the Viniyam, M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 have not been adopted and the Viniyam do not contemplate to initiate departmental enquiry after attaining the age of superannuation of an employee of the Board. However, initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement of petitioner is contrary to the Viniyam applicable to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has argued that looking to the imputation of allegation attached to the charge sheet it is apparent that allegation relates back to the year 1997-98. However, during employment of the petitioner till 31.5.2012 no departmental enquiry was initiated for more than 14 years and now after attaining the age of superannuation, at the time of settlement of the retiral dues, initiation of such departmental enquiry is arbitrary, malafide and do not have sanction under the rules and also contrary to the law laid down by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 . Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Apex Court held that in the regulation applicable to the employee no specific provision is 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 the departmental enquiry after superannuation. However, it is held that Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction from the retiral benefits of the appellant and there is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement, and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. In view of the said submissions, it is prayed that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice may be quashed and respondents may be directed to settle all the retiral dues of petitioner making payment of the amount of contributory provident fund. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 has contended that after considering the case of UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 412 the Apex Court has described that two concepts shall be applicable in the matter of demitting the office; one is resignation and other is retirement. However, both are different and for different purpose and in different context. It is explained that resignation brings about the complete cession of master and servant relationship, but retirement does not do so. In case of retirement, master and servant relationship continues for grant of retiral benefits. However, in case loss is caused by an act of the officer, who has demitted the office after the retirement departmental enquiry for recovery of the said loss caused by him may be continued, even after retirement. 4. In the facts of this case and on foregoing submissions the question cropped up for determination is as to whether in absence of having any provision under the Viniyam the respondent Board may initiate and continue the departmental enquiry, for recovery of the alleged loss, even after retirement of petitioner? 5. 4. In the facts of this case and on foregoing submissions the question cropped up for determination is as to whether in absence of having any provision under the Viniyam the respondent Board may initiate and continue the departmental enquiry, for recovery of the alleged loss, even after retirement of petitioner? 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, prior to advert the arguments to answer the moot question, first of all the guidance may be taken from the various pronouncements of the Apex Court in the matter of initiation and continuation of the departmental enquiry in case an employee has attained the age of superannuation. 6. The aforementioned issue came up for consideration before the three judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 202 wherein the Apex Court after referring the Fundamental Rule 56(a) and (j) and also Rule 161 (aa)(1) and 161 (2)(ii) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules held that the appointing authority has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against a government servant who had effectively retired. There after in the case of Kirti Bhusan Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 675 the Apex Court has an occasion to consider the said issue in the context of Rule 73(f) of Bihar Service Code and also Rule 116 of the Bihar Pension Rules and on the interpretation of those rules it is held that once the application for voluntary retirement on medical ground has been accepted and the employee has been ordered to be retired then he shall ceased to be the government servant. Any order of dismissal thereafter would be unsustainable unless it was permissible under the law to the State Government to revoke the order of retirement and to reinstate him in his former status as government servant before the order of dismissal was passed. It is said that in absence of any provision entitling the State Government to revoke an order of retirement passed on medical ground, which had become effective and final, the revocation order must beheld to have been filed without the authority of law and liable to be set aside and therefore the order of dismissal was also nullity. 7. It is said that in absence of any provision entitling the State Government to revoke an order of retirement passed on medical ground, which had become effective and final, the revocation order must beheld to have been filed without the authority of law and liable to be set aside and therefore the order of dismissal was also nullity. 7. In the case of State Bank of India vs. A.N. Gupta and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 60 the issue of continuation of departmental enquiry after retirement came for consideration. The Apex Court has held that the proceedings in the garb of disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted after employee has ceased to be in the service of the Bank as Service Rules do not provide for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the date of superannuation. Sanction of the Bank is required only if the retirement of an employee is by any other method except superannuation. 8. In the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 the issue of initiation and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings under the Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 came for consideration. The Apex Court in the context of said regulation observed that no specific provisions exists in the said regulation for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in departmental enquiry, nor is there any provision for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. In the absence of any such provisions, it must be held that the respondent-Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the appellant's retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after appellant's retirement, nor is there any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on a particular date, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuation of the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In absence of such authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits. 9. In absence of such authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits. 9. In the case of UCO Bank and Another vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, 2007 (6) SCC 694 the Apex Court in the context of UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulations, 1979 has held that an order of dismissal or removal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question of terminating his services ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in that behalf. The Apex Court held that the departmental enquiry is permissible only in those cases where the departmental enquiry has been commenced during service by issue of a charge sheet and not by mere show cause notice. The said judgment had been put for review before the Apex Court. However, while deciding the same in a judgment of UCO Bank and Another vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2008) 5 SCC 257 the Apex Court said, a rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a departmental proceedings despite officer's being attained the age of superannuation must be statutory rule. If the rules do not permit continuation of the departmental proceedings after retirement, the same is not permissible. Thus, reiterating the law laid down in the earlier judgment, the review was dismissed in the said case. 10. In the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and Others, (2011) 6 SCC 508 same question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the context of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. In reference to those rules the Apex Court held that in case the delinquent had already retired, the proceedings shall not be instituted against him without the sanction of the Central Government and shall be in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. On the facts it is held that the law does not permit holding of disciplinary proceedings at this belated stage as the alleged misconduct took place during the period 1993-1995. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 . On the facts it is held that the law does not permit holding of disciplinary proceedings at this belated stage as the alleged misconduct took place during the period 1993-1995. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 . In the said case, the Supreme Court has relied upon the cases of NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association (supra) and celebrated judgment of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) and also considered the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd . and Others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 as relied by the counsel for the respondents and after considering the same it is held that the relevant rules governing service of an employee are the determining factors as to whether and in what manner a domestic enquiry can be held against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation. Generally if the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent employee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but the nature of punishment would change. The punishment of dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed. 11. The Apex Court in the recent judgment of Dev Prakash Tiwari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 260 has considered the issue of initiation and continuation of the departmental enquiry after retirement and when it is permissible. The Court held that in case there is specific provision in the applicable rules, the departmental enquiry may be permissible. In absence of provisions of initiation and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after retirement the authority do not vest with the respondents to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, that too was kept pending for three years after retirement of the appellant. It is further held that after retirement even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in retiral benefits, rules do not permit so. Thus, in absence thereto the appellant is entitled to arrears of salary and allowance during the period of his dismissal and his reinstatement. 12. In view of the above said pronouncements of the Apex Court, it can safely be concluded that the services of an employee would be governed by the rules applicable in the department in which he was in the employment. 12. In view of the above said pronouncements of the Apex Court, it can safely be concluded that the services of an employee would be governed by the rules applicable in the department in which he was in the employment. The relevant rules applicable governing the service conditions of an employee would be determinative to the authorities to initiate or to continue with the departmental enquiry against the employee who stood retired after attaining the age of superannuation. If the rules permit to initiate or to continue with the departmental enquiry even after attaining the age of superannuation and in the manner as prescribed, it would be initiated and continued otherwise not permissible. If the departmental rules further permit to withhold the provident fund by changing the nature of the punishment after holding an employee guilty in case the departmental enquiry initiated while in service then enquiry may be permissible. Meaning thereby, if the departmental enquiry was initiated while delinquent employee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement changing the nature of punishment, but in case the rules does not contemplate the offering of even the changed punishment, desirability of the continuation of the said departmental enquiry is otiose. If the employee has attained the age of superannuation, initiation and conducting of a departmental enquiry is generally not permissible that too by span of a long time, until specified in the rules governing service conditions. 13. In the said context, the facts of this case requires consideration. Undisputedly the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2012 by an order Annexure P/1 passed by the Board. The Khadi Gramodyog Board in the State of M.P. Has been established under the M.P. Gramodyog Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). Under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, Viniyam have been framed and published in the official gazette, which govern the service conditions of the employee of the Board. The said Viniyam are known as M.P. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Viniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Viniyam). Under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, Viniyam have been framed and published in the official gazette, which govern the service conditions of the employee of the Board. The said Viniyam are known as M.P. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Viniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Viniyam). Under Clause 4 of the said Viniyam, the Board has adopted the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977; M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965; M.P. Civil Services Medical (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, Travelling Allowance and Daily Allowance Grant Rules; M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 and M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 subject to certain modification clarifying the meaning of the words Appointing Authority, Government, Post, Disciplinary Authority, Government Servant and the Departmental Head. Thus, it is apparent that M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 have not been adopted for the employees of the Board presumably because the Board employees are not entitled for the pension and other retiral benefits. The Board employee would be paid contributory provident fund and other retiral benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. It is relevant to point out here that Rule 9 of the M.P. Pension Rules confers a power to the government for initiation and continuation of the departmental enquiry and to withhold the pension under the orders of the Governor and in the manner so prescribed, but in case those rules have not been adopted by the Board, however, this Court is having no hesitation to conclude that in absence of any provision in the Viniyam to initiate or to continue with the departmental enquiry after attaining the age of superannuation, it cannot be continued against the petitioner in furtherance to the charge sheet Annexure P/3. 14. In addition to the aforesaid legal position and in the facts of the case it is relevant to observe that as per the charge sheet Annexure P/3 dated 27.4.2013, the enquiry relates back to the year 1996-97 indicating some loss caused by an act of the petitioner mis-utilizing his powers. Admittedly the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2012. However, after creating such cause to initiate departmental enquiry to the Board, the petitioner remained in service for about 15 years continuously, but during such period no charge sheet was issued to him initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2012. However, after creating such cause to initiate departmental enquiry to the Board, the petitioner remained in service for about 15 years continuously, but during such period no charge sheet was issued to him initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. When he has attained the age of superannuation, approximately after 11 months the impugned notice and charge sheet has been issued withholding his retiral benefits till conclusion of the enquiry. The said fact apparently indicates that if the Board was really serious on imputation of the allegations alleged against the petitioner then they had an occasion to initiate departmental enquiry, but it was not opted by the Board and when the petitioner stood retired from service and approximately about 11 months from attaining the age of superannuation after about 15 years departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. In the said context the judgment of P.V. Mahadevan (supra) is aptly apply wherein the Apex Court has held that in case a departmental enquiry has been initiated after more than 10 years, it would be prejudicial to the employee and it cannot be continued after attaining the age of superannuation. 15. It is to observe here that in the Viniyam applicable to the employees of the Board, there is no provision of withholding of the post retiral benefits. However, in case the allegations have been found prove even then the recovery to the loss caused cannot be directed in absence of any specific provision. In addition to the aforesaid, once on attaining the age of superannuation by an employee after completion of age of retirement, the master and servant relationship ceases to have its effect for all purposes even by changing of the penalty because it is not permissible under the Viniyam of the Board. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion of the legal position enunciated by various pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as the service conditions governing the employees of the Board, particularly the Viniyam applicable, it can safely be held that initiation of departmental enquiry and to continue the same after attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner is not permissible under the Viniyam. It is to be further held that the departmental enquiry, which has not been initiated prior to attaining the age of superannuation cannot be continued even for the change of nature of the punishment. It can also be held that the Viniyam do not provide for withholding of the retiral benefits even for the purpose of recovery of the loss caused by an employee or due to the misconduct. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to stand and the action taken by the department by issuing a charge sheet is held to be without authority under the law. In the facts discussed above, it can further be held that initiation of the departmental enquiry for a cause created to the department 15 years prior to the date of superannuation and to initiate the departmental enquiry after 11 months from the date of attaining the age of superannuation would amount to arbitrary exercise of powers with mala-fide intention, which cannot be allowed to stand. 17. In consequence to the discussion made herein above, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation in furtherance to the show cause notice and charge sheet Annexure P/3 stands quashed. It is further directed that the post retiral dues of the petitioner be settled and paid to him within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order along with interest as permissible under the law. However, in the facts of the case, no order as to cost. Petition allowed.