JUDGMENT : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Manager with the Jodhpur Cooperative Bank and was placed under suspension on 26.07.2004 just 4 days before his retirement. He retired on 31.07.2004 and post retirement, his gratuity amount was not released. 2. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 18.03.2006, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules) and the proceedings in pursuance to the same were concluded vide the inquiry report dated 03.01.2011. The inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner qua charge No. 2 but found him guilty for supervisory negligence qua charge No. 1. On the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 16.05.2011. After the dismissal order being passed, the present writ petition was amended and the order of dismissal was also put to challenge. 3. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that firstly, no charge-sheet could have been issued to the petitioner after his retirement. He argued that the petitioner's services were not governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "RSR Rules") and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "RCS Rules") and therefore, there being no provision available in the CCA Rules (the Rules by which the petitioner was governed), neither any charge-sheet could have been served on the petitioner after his retirement nor any punishment could have been imposed on him. Counsel further argued that Rule 14 of the CCA Rules provides for a punishment to the government servant and the petitioner being no more a government servant after his retirement, could not be governed by the said rule and therefore, in absence of any rule or provision of law, he could not have been punished. 4. Regarding the said submission, counsel relied upon the judgments passed in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Ors. (Civil Appeals No. 5848-49 of 2014, decided on 30.06.2014) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 and Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2101/1999, decided on 31.03.1999) reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 . 5. (Civil Appeals No. 5848-49 of 2014, decided on 30.06.2014) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 and Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2101/1999, decided on 31.03.1999) reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 . 5. Counsel further argued that the punishment of dismissal as imposed is totally disproportionate to the charge as framed and proved. The petitioner was found guilty of supervisory negligence and the punishment of dismissal for a guilt of supervisory negligence is highly disproportionate. It has been submitted that all the other persons against whom the inquiry qua the same charges was conducted, had been exonerated by the inquiry officer and only the petitioner had been found guilty of supervisory negligence which also is highly questionable. 6. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of retirement, the lien of his services with the respondent Bank came to an end and so too the master and servant relationship. Therefore, the petitioner was not a government servant who could have been governed by Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents failed to point out any provision of the CCA Rules which could govern the matters wherein any disciplinary proceedings could be conducted against an employee after his retirement or any punishment thereupon could be imposed. Admittedly, the services of the present petitioner are not governed by the RSR but are governed by the CCA Rules. As noted above, the CCA Rules does not provide for any inquiry to be conducted after the date of retirement. 8. In Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid 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 abovesaid 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. 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 30.6.1995, 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." 9. Moresoever, it is clear on record that qua charge No. 1 for which the petitioner had been held guilty of supervisory negligence, all the other employees involved therein had been exonerated by the inquiry officer. So far as the punishment of dismissal is concerned, in terms of the settled proposition of law, for a guilt of supervisory negligence, punishment of dismissal is totally disproportionate. The finding as recorded by the inquiry officer cannot be concluded so as to prove that the guilt was of such a nature which could culminate into dismissal of service. 10. In view of the ratio as laid down in Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra) and in view of the observations as made above, the impugned order of dismissal dated 16.05.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence, the petitioner will be entitled to his gratuity amount with immediate effect. 11. The respondents are directed to disburse the gratuity amount to the petitioner with interest in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 7(3A) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of present order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.