JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction upon the respondents for payment of pension and other postretiral benefits to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner who was appointed on 21.09.1978 under Pindra Colliery was served a superannuation notice dated 06.09.2011 indicating his date of retirement on 30.09.2011. In the counteraffidavit, the respondents have disclosed that on a complaint received from one Amelun Khatoon alleging that the petitioner secured employment through fraudulent means an enquiry was instituted. During preliminary enquiry, the petitioner has admitted the fact that he is not the brother of Smt. Amelun Khatoon rather, he is related to mother of Smt. Amelun Khatoon. Before initiation of the enquiry proceeding, a chargesheet dated 01.08.2011 was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his response on 19.08.2011. Finding his response not satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 29.08.2011. In the inquiry proceeding, the petitioner participated and finally the enquiring officer submitted a report on 29.09.2011, finding the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2011 and accordingly, a legal opinion was sought on claim for payment of postretiral benefits. The respondents have pleaded that in view of the fortuitous position which occurred on superannuation from service of the petitioner before a final order was passed in the departmental enquiry, the claim for postretiral benefits cannot be entertained. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not claimed that a copy of the enquiry report was not served upon him though, he has disclosed issuance of chargememo and his explanation submitted to the respondents. 3. Referring to the letter dated 06.09.2011 the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents themselves have admitted in the office order dated 06.09.2011 that the petitioner is entitled for all postretiral benefits including, the pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in " State of Jharkhand And Others vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava And Another , (2013) 12 SCC 210 " to contend that mere pendency of a departmental proceeding is not a ground to withhold pension and other postretiral benefits. However, Miss Pooja Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondentCCL submits that a person who has secured employment through fraudulent means cannot lay a claim for payment of postretiral benefits. 4. However, Miss Pooja Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondentCCL submits that a person who has secured employment through fraudulent means cannot lay a claim for payment of postretiral benefits. 4. No doubt, a departmental proceeding terminates on a decision by the disciplinary authority, either exonerating the delinquent from the charges or awarding punishment for the misconduct found proved, however, on admitted facts when it is found that the enquiring officer has returned a conclusive finding that the petitioner has secured employment impersonating himself as son of Amelun Khatoon, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of the fortuitous circumstance which has occurred on his superannuation from service. In the case of "Jitendra Kumar Srivastava" , it has been held that if in the departmental proceeding it is found that the employee has committed grave misconduct while in service, his retiral benefits can be withheld/ forfeited. The petitioner who has secured employment by fraudulent means must be held guilty of committing grave misconduct. His service under the employerM/s CCL, on account of fraud committed by him, cannot be said to be meritorious on account of which he would have earned a right to receive pension and other postretiral benefits. In fact, good and satisfactory conduct is a precondition for grant of pension. In a catena of judgments the Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates everything, and, in my opinion, once fraud is detected service rendered by an employee, even good works, must stand excluded from consideration for grant of any service benefit, during or after his retirement, to the employee. 5. In the above facts, finding no substance in the plea raised by the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed.