JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Arora, J. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has approached to this Court with a prayer for direction to the opposite parties to release the retiral dues of the petitioner pertaining to gratuity, leave encashment etc. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction for quashing the departmental proceedings pending against him in absence of any provision contained in Corporation's Service Rules. 3. The facts in brief for the purpose of the adjudication of the instant writ petition as culled out from the writ petition are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent corporation. He was promoted on the post of Divisional Manager on 28.10.2003. He continued in service as Divisional Manager and was served a notice dated 02.01.2017 of his retirement. Subsequently he was served with another notice dated 25.02.2017 in which it was mentioned that he has completed his tenure of service therefore he has to retire on 28.02.2017. However, at the fag end of his service and just prior to his retirement he was served with a charge-sheet on 23.02.2017 by the department. The said charge sheet was issued through registered post on residential address of the petitioner, though the petitioner was posted as Divisional Manager at Gorakhpur and the same was not served personally on him. The petitioner has replied to the said charge sheet on 04.03.2017. Subsequently opposite party No. 2 issued a letter on 05.06.2017 by which the petitioner was asked to deposit Custom of Rice Mill (CMR). The petitioner has made representations dated 18.07.2017 and 24.07.2017 claiming his retiral dues, but the same has not been paid to him till date on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and due to non-deposit of the alleged dues on CMR. The petitioner has further stated that the petitioner was in supervisory jurisdiction as Divisional Manager and he cannot be held responsible for not depositing the CMR and in similar circumstances the retiral dues of one Divisional Manger Sri Suresh Chandra Tomar has been released. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the petitioner was in supervisory jurisdiction as Divisional Manager and he cannot be held responsible for not depositing the CMR and in similar circumstances the retiral dues of one Divisional Manger Sri Suresh Chandra Tomar has been released. 4. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as Divisional Manager in the office of the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Executive Director, U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation and before his date of retirement on 28.02.2017, a charge-sheet was issued against him on 23.02.2017. The charges in the charge-sheet are relating to the supervisory jurisdiction, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be proceeded after his retirement in view of the absence of any provision contained in Service Rules known as Uttar Pradesh State Employees Welfare Corporation Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1995) and Model Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules for services of U.P. State Enterprises, adopted by the Corporation and no other rule has been framed till date in this regard. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on account of the issuance of charge-sheet at the fag end of his service and just prior to his retirement from service the retiral dues of the petitioner are not being paid, where as the same cannot be legally withheld. 5. Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on account of the irregularities committed by him during his service period and the loss has been suffered by the department on account of the irregularities committed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has also not deposited certain CMR (Custom of Rice Mill) and he has been asked to deposit the same. As such unless the loss and dues of the Corporation are not recovered the petitioner is not entitled for the pensionary benefits. However, he admits that there is no provision under the concerned service rules to hold or continue with the departmental proceedings after the retirement of an employee. 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules 1995. Rule 39 of the said Rules regarding control and appeal provides for the disciplinary proceedings. 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules 1995. Rule 39 of the said Rules regarding control and appeal provides for the disciplinary proceedings. The same is reproduced herein-under: ^^vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ksa] ftlds vUrxZr fuyEcu] n.M ds fo:) vihy vkSj vH;kosnu Hkh gSa] ls lEcfU/kr fu;e ,sls gksaxs tSlk 'kklukns'k la[;k&567@44-2-20@88]91] lkoZtfud m|e vuqHkkx&2] y[kum fnuakd 25-09-1991 esa fn;s x;s funsZ’k ds vuqlkj cuk;s x;s ^ekWMy dUMDV fMflIysu ,.M vihy :Yl ds vuqlkj cksMZ }kjk fofgr fd;s tk;sa vkSj tc rd ,sls fu;e u cu tk;sa] rc rd mDr ^ekWMy dUMDV fMflIysu ,.M vihy :Yl* ds micU/k ;Fkkvko';d ifjorZu lfgr fuxe ds deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw gksaxsA** 7. It has been provided in the said Rules that the Rules regarding suspension, punishment and appeal or representation would be such as provided in the Government Order No. 567/44-2-20/88-91 dated 25.09.1991, till such Rules are framed by the Board similar to the Model Conduct and Disciplinary Appeal Rules. Rules of 1995 and the said Model Conduct and Disciplinary Appeal Rules no where provide for enquiry after the retirement of an employee of the corporation. 8. It is now well settled that the departmental inquiry cannot be held against the retired employees, if it is not specifically provided in the Rules or Regulations. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 that in view of absence of such a specific provision in the Regulations, the Corporation has no legal authority to make any reduction in the retrial benefits of the appellant. The paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment, on reproduction, reads as under: "6. It will be noticed from the above said regulations that no specific provision was 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 departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such provision in the above-said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. 7. In view of the absence of such provision in the above-said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor 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 30.6.95. there was no authority vested in the Corporation or continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retrial benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retrial benefits on retirement." 9. Relying on the aforesaid, judgment and order has been passed by this Court in the case of S.S.L Verma v. U.P Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others 2004 (22) LCD 659 and Dr. R.B. Agnihotri v. State of U.P. & others 2000(2) A.W.C 1242 and Writ Petition No. 989 of 2010 (P.P Pandey v. State of U.P & others). 10. Recently the same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others (2013) 6 SCC 515 . The relevant paragraph No. 34 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "We may add that the Court has not been apprised of any rule that may confer any statutory power on the management to hold a fresh enquiry after the retirement of an employee. In the absence of any such authority, the Division Bench has erred in creating a post-retirement forum that may not be permissible under law." 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that enquiry cannot be continued after the retirement of the petitioner in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 23.02.2017 issued by the department and the same is liable to be quashed. Since no departmental enquiry can be continued after the retirement of the petitioner against him, there is no justification of with-holding the retrial dues such as gratuity, leave encashment etc. as claimed by the petitioner. 12. Since no departmental enquiry can be continued after the retirement of the petitioner against him, there is no justification of with-holding the retrial dues such as gratuity, leave encashment etc. as claimed by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and departmental proceedings in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 23.02.2017 are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to make the payment of the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner including gratuity, leave encashment etc. within a period of two months' from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. 13. No order as to costs.