JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Office Assistant in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited on 20.6.1977. Taking into consideration the work and conduct of the petitioner, he was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant and thereafter, on the post of Accountant and lastly, he was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on 19.8.2013. 3. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2017. While working on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, against the petitioner, disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 was issued against him. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 21.1.2017, denying the allegations levelled against him. After submission of reply to the charge-sheet, nothing was done and in the meantime on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2017. 4. Two months prior to the retirement of the petitioner, another enquiry was instituted against him on 28.3.2017 and in pursuance thereof, no charge-sheet was issued nor the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2017. Being no provision under the Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner to initiate or to continue disciplinary proceedings, the same would have dropped as per the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable to the employees of the Corporation. The petitioner claimed for the payment of retiral benefits on 18% interest thereon by challenging the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 approved on 15.11.2016 and office memorandum dated 28.3.2017 whereby re-enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable to the employees of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation, there is no provision for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employee, therefore, withholding of retiral dues of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. He next submitted that the respondents should have dropped the proceeding after the retirement of the petitioner by passing an order with the direction to ensure payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. He next submitted that the respondents should have dropped the proceeding after the retirement of the petitioner by passing an order with the direction to ensure payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. Due to non-passing of the order, the petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 and office memorandum dated 28.3.2017 whereby disciplinary proceeding was again instituted against the petitioner. 6. In support of the submissions advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors O.S.F.C. and Others (1999) 3 SCC 666 . He further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others (2014) 7 SCC 260 . He also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of S.S.L. Verma Vs. U.P. Cooperative Bank Limited and Others, passed in Writ Petition No.1170 (S/B) of 1995, decided on 12.2.2004. He next placed reliance upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Ji Vs. U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation & Milk Union Centralized, passed in Service Bench No.16 of 2014, decided on 21.12.2017. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the enquiry against the petitioner was instituted prior to his retirement, therefore, there is no illegality in continuing the disciplinary proceeding against him after the retirement. The writ petition is a misconceived writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled to get relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena (Supra), the Supreme Court has considered that in regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceeding under Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations of 1975. The charge-sheet was served on the employee on 22.7.1992 but enquiry could not be completed against him till his retirement on 30.6.1995, therefore, contention of the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that neither enquiry could be continued nor any amount deducted from his provident fund, after his retirement is permissible. In deciding the controversy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded a finding in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are being quoted below:- "6. In deciding the controversy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded a finding in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are being quoted below:- "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. 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 retiral 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 retiral benefits on retirement. 8. Learned senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in T.S. Mankad v. State of Gujarat reported in, [1989] Suppl. 2 SCC 110. It is true that that was a case of imposing a reduction in the pension and gratuity on account of unsatisfactory service of the employee as determined in an enquiry which was extended beyond the date of superannuation. But the above decision cannot help the respondent inasmuch as in that case there was a specific rule namely Rule 241-A of the Junagadh State Pension and Parwashi Allowance Rules, 1932 which enabled the imposition of a reduction in the pension or gratuity of a person after retirement. Further, there were rules in that case which enabled the continuance of departmental enquiry even after superannuation for the purpose of finding out whether any misconduct was established which could be taken into account for the purpose of Rule 241-A. In the absence of a similar provision with Regulations of the respondent Corporation, the above judgment of Mankad's case cannot help the respondent. 9. 9. The question has also been raised in the appeal in regard to the payment of arrears of salary and other allowances payable to the appellant during the period he was kept under suspension and upto the date of superannuation. Inasmuch as the enquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him after deducting the suspension allowance that was paid to him during the above said period. 10. The appeal is therefore allowed directing the respondent to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to him during the period of suspension upto the date of superannuation after deducting the suspension allowance paid to him for the said period and also to pay the appellant, all the retiral benefits otherwise payable to him in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable, as if there had been no disciplinary enquiry or order passed there in." 9. In the case of Dev Prakash Tewari (Supra), the appellant before the Supreme Court was working as Assistant Engineer and the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. Against the appellant, a charge-sheet was served and after inquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 27.4.1988. The appellant sought for quashing the said order by filing a Writ Petition No.4328 (S/B) of 1988 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein it was held that inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Regulation 85, no opportunity was provided to cross-examine the witness and there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice and quashed the disciplinary proceeding by allowing the writ petition on 10.1.2006 with the further direction for reinstatement and payment of back wages in accordance with the rules by giving liberty to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the regulations. Pursuant to the order, the appellant joined duty on 26.4.2006 and thereafter, fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated by passing an order on 7.7.2006, appointing Shri G.S. Srivastava, Mukhya Abhiyanta as inquiry officer. During the pendency of the inquiry, the appellant before the Supreme Court reached the age of superannuation and retired from service as Assistant Engineer on 31.3.2009. Pursuant to the order, the appellant joined duty on 26.4.2006 and thereafter, fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated by passing an order on 7.7.2006, appointing Shri G.S. Srivastava, Mukhya Abhiyanta as inquiry officer. During the pendency of the inquiry, the appellant before the Supreme Court reached the age of superannuation and retired from service as Assistant Engineer on 31.3.2009. The subject matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court and after consideration of the provisions contained under the Rules/Regulations applicable to the employees, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The facts are not in dispute. The High Court while quashing the earlier disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in its order dated 10.1.2006 granted liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in accordance with the Regulations. The appellant who was reinstated in service on 26.4.2006 and fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 7.7.2006 and while that was pending, the appellant attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.3.2009. There is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the appellant nor there is any provision stating that in case misconduct is established a deduction could be made from his retiral benefits. 6. An occasion came before this Court to consider the continuance of disciplinary inquiry in similar circumstance in Bhagirathi Jena case (supra) and it was laid down as follows: (SCC pp. 668-69, paras 5-7) "5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause (3) (c) of Regulation-44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. It reads thus : '44. (3)(c) When the employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the Board shall consider and make a specific order :- (i) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty, and (ii) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period on duty.' 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 the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. 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 the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such a 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 for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 7. In the subsequent decision of this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation case (supra) on facts, the disciplinary proceeding against employee was quashed by the High Court since no opportunity of hearing was given to him in the inquiry and the management in its appeal before this Court sought for grant of liberty to hold a fresh inquiry and this Court held that charges levelled against the employee were not minor in nature, and therefore, it would not be proper to foreclose the right of the employer to hold a fresh inquiry only on the ground that the employee has since retired from the service and accordingly granted the liberty sought for by the management. While dealing with the above case, the earlier decision in Bhagirathi Jenas case (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court and no contention was raised pertaining to the provisions under which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and as such no ratio came to be laid down. In our view the said decision cannot help the respondents herein. 8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In our view the said decision cannot help the respondents herein. 8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits. 9. The question has also been raised in the appeal with regard to arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant during the period of his dismissal and upto the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him. 10. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. No costs." 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.S.L. Verma (Supra) while considering the same issue that whether an employee of the U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd., whose services are governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 could be subjected to any initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings or award of punishment after retirement, has held as under:- "1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri. H.P. Srivastava and Sri. N.K. Seth for the Respondent Bank. 2. Excluding all other facts, the short point involved in the present petition is as to whether an employee of the U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd., whose services are governed by the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 could be subjected to any initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings or award of punishment after retirement even though no such power exists in the aforesaid Service Regulations and also whether without holding any enquiry and without associating the Petitioner in the enquiry, any amount towards gratuity or ex gratia payment could have been withheld in view of the Circulars and Office Memorandum issued by the Bank. 3. 3. The Petitioner joined the services of U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. In the year 1956 on the post of Assistant, who was later on promoted upto the post of Deputy General Manager from which post he retired on 31st March, 1993. since after retirement, the Petitioner was not being paid the balance amount of gratuity, security and ex gratia for the years 199192, 1992-93 on the alleged audit objections, as disclosed in the counter-affidavit, the Petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the aforesaid directions also. 4. Since initially at the time of filing of the writ petition, the aforesaid facts were not in the knowledge of the Petitioner, the necessary plea was taken on the basis of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, wherein the Bank made efforts to justify its action of withholding the payment, though, according to the Bank, only ex gratia payment has not been made on the ground that in view of the Circular issued by the Bank under the signatures of the Managing Director, referred to above, such recovery could have very well been made from the Petitioner. 5. The power to hold enquiry including initiation of disciplinary proceedings, its continuation and consequently award of punishment, after retirement of an employee, would depend upon the Service Rules which govern the services of such an employee. In the absence of any statutory provision or rule, such an enquiry can neither be initiated nor continued nor any punishment can be inflicted after an employee retires. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors MANU/SC/0260/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 666 , where the Apex Court, considering the effect of retirement on the pending departmental enquiry, held as under: ... 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 the departmental enquiry after superannuation. In view of the absence of such a provision in the aforesaid 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 nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the Appellant 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 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the Appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the Appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement. 6. In the case of Dr. R.B. Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/0259/2000 : 2000 (2) AWC 1242 : 2000 (2) HVD 161, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in the absence of any statutory provision departmental proceedings could not be continued after retirement even to the extent for the purpose of imposing any reduction to the retiral benefits payable to the employee. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, no enquiry was even initiated against the Petitioner either before or after retirement nor any enquiry could have been continued after the Petitioner retired. It was only on the basis of the Circular and Office Memorandum issued by the Bank itself that the amount of ex gratia was not paid. The Bank had no authority to issue a Circular or the Office Memorandum, as contained in Annexure-C-5 and C-6 to the short counter-affidavit, which does not conform to provisions of statutory Regulations of 1975. Even otherwise, there is no provision in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 where the Bank or the Managing Director or Board of Directors or the Bank can be said to be empowered or vested with power to issue any such Circular or Office Memorandum. We, therefore, find that the aforesaid Circular/Office Memorandum could not be made applicable for the purpose of taking any action against an employee of the Co-operative Bank who has retired after reaching the age of superannuation. The Circular and Office Memorandum has thus been issued without any authority and are non est and void to that extent and we declare accordingly. 8. Learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted that because of audit objection such a step had to be taken. The Circular and Office Memorandum has thus been issued without any authority and are non est and void to that extent and we declare accordingly. 8. Learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted that because of audit objection such a step had to be taken. We find it appropriate to observe that merely on audit objection, the recovery could not have been made unless the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity even otherwise, subject to there being any such rule for holding such an enquiry after retirement. 9. There appears to be little dispute regarding the amount which has not been paid to the Petitioner, as, according to the Petitioner, besides the amount of ex gratia a part of amount of gratuity and security has also not been paid, whereas, according to the Bank, only the amount of ex gratia has not been paid. 10. We, therefore, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct that the amount to which the Petitioner is entitled towards post retiral dues including payment of ex gratia and other amounts which have not been paid to the Petitioner, shall be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Looking to the facts of the case and the fact that the Petitioner has retired in the year 1993 and the money which has been withheld from being paid was withheld without any authority, we direct that the Petitioner shall be entitled and shall be paid interest on the unpaid amount from the date it became due at the rate of 6% simple interest, till it is actually paid. 12. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs." 11. The similar issue was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Ji (Supra) wherein the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation and Milk Union Centralized Services Rules, 1984 and the service conditions of the petitioner were being governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 was under consideration. 12. In the present controversy, the provisions of Service Regulations, 1975 in the like manner of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which permits the respondents to continue with any disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to superannuation or to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after superannuation was under consideration. 12. In the present controversy, the provisions of Service Regulations, 1975 in the like manner of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which permits the respondents to continue with any disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to superannuation or to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after superannuation was under consideration. The Division Bench, after examining the controversy came to the conclusion and held as under:- "32. We have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the records and found that in the respondents corporation there is no provision of disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employee. This Court in various judgments have passed order for payment of the retiral dues of the employees holding that since no enquiry can be instituted or continued after retirement of the employee in the absence of Rules and the same cannot be a ground for withholding the retiral dues. We are of the considered view that since there is no provision under the Rules for holding any enquiry after retirement of the employee of the respondents /corporation as the employer-employee relation seizes after retirement. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Prakash Tiwari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 260. The relevant paragraph 8 of which is reproduced hereunder;- "Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.03.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had laposed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits." 33. The issue involved in the present writ petition has already been considered by this Court in bunch of writ petition being leading Writ Petition No. 39590 of 2016(Rishi Pal Singh versus State of U.P. and another). The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: "We have considered the submissions raised and having heard learned counsel for the parties, no provision has been pointed out to be available under the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1961, that may permit the Corporation to proceed to hold disciplinary proceedings and impose any penalty on its employees governed by the aforesaid Regulations under the same after retirement. There is no such provision pari materia with Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation. The Division Bench in the case of Dhananjay Prasad Pandey (supra) has held as follows:- "The petitioner was to retire on 31 October 2014 and it appears that for this reason action was taken against the petitioner because the Rules do not permit initiation or continuance of disciplinary proceedings after retirement. The action of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice." 34. The Hon'ble Apex Court, way back in the year 1999 while examining the issue of deduction of any amount from the retiral dues and conduct of a departmental proceeding after superannuation of an employee in the absence of rules in the case of Bhagirathi Jena versus Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 held 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 retiral benefits of the appellant. The paragraphs 6 & 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. 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 retiral 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 retiral benefits on retirement." 35. Relying on the aforesaid, judgment and order has been passed by this Court in the case of S.S.L Verma versus U.P Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others 2004 (22) LCD 659 and Dr. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 35. Relying on the aforesaid, judgment and order has been passed by this Court in the case of S.S.L Verma versus U.P Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others 2004 (22) LCD 659 and Dr. R.B. Agnihotri Versus State of U.P. & others 2000(2) A.W.C 1242 and Writ Petition No.989 of 2010 (P.P Pandey versus State of U.P & others). 36. Relying on several judgments in this regard, similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni vs. 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." 37. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that no enquiry can be held against the petitioner after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, further action in respect of the charge sheet dated 07.11.2002 issued against the petitioner are void after his retirement and the charge sheet is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for payment of the dues as claimed by him in paragraph 27 of the writ petition with interest." 13. In view of the discussion hereinabove and on perusal of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable to the employees of the Bridge Corporation, the Court find that there is no provision to continue disciplinary proceedings against the employee of the Bridge Corporation after the retirement. Thus, the ratio of the judgment referred hereinabove are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that no inquiry can be held against the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation. 15. Accordingly, charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 and order dated 28.3.2017 are liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to the payment of dues as claimed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 15. Accordingly, charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 and order dated 28.3.2017 are liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to the payment of dues as claimed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 and order dated 28.3.2017 are hereby quashed. 17. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner admissible retiral dues along with interest at the rate of 8% within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced.