JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present special appeal, the appellants are assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the respondent (writ petitioner) were declared to be without any authority of law. Further, a direction was issued to disburse the amount of gratuity withheld as a consequence of punishment of ‘dismissal from services’ imposed upon the respondent, with interest payable in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent while holding the post of Branch Manager, Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bilara (hereinafter referred as ‘appellant-bank’) stood retired from the services w.e.f. 31.07.2004, on attaining the age of superannuation. The Managing Director of the appellant-bank, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, exercising powers conferred under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CC&A Rules of 1958’) vide order dated 26.07.2004 placed respondent under suspension, just 5 days before his retirement. 3. A charge-sheet dated 18.03.2006 was served upon the respondent under Rule 16 of CC&A Rules of 1958 wherein two charges were levelled against him: firstly, it was alleged that the respondent had acted in violation of orders and instructions of the appellant-bank culminating into embezzlement by way of distribution of loans to about 40 dead persons amounting to Rs. 8,78,071/- secondly, it was alleged that the respondent negligently issued forged passbooks and related documents resulting into irregular payments to agriculturist loanees to the tune of Rs. 34,87,545/-. In the inquiry report dated 03.01.2011, the respondent was found guilty of supervisory negligence qua charge No. 1 while he was exonerated qua charge No. 2. The disciplinary authority on receiving the inquiry report, vide order dated 16.05.2011 inflicted penalty of dismissal from services upon the respondent. 4. A challenge was laid to the dismissal order dated 16.05.2011 before the learned Single Bench on multiple grounds. The learned Single Bench after hearing the parties held that CC&A Rules of 1958 applicable upon the government servants of the State of Rajasthan have been adopted by the appellant-bank to follow the procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings against its employees. However, there is no provision under CC&A Rules of 1958 which covers disciplinary proceedings against retired employees. The learned Single Bench after hearing the parties held that CC&A Rules of 1958 applicable upon the government servants of the State of Rajasthan have been adopted by the appellant-bank to follow the procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings against its employees. However, there is no provision under CC&A Rules of 1958 which covers disciplinary proceedings against retired employees. The learned Single Bench also found the punishment of dismissal from services imposed upon the respondent for supervisory negligence to be disproportionate to the charges levelled in the charge-sheet dated 18.03.2006. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 26.05.2022, quashed and set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 16.05.2011 and directed the respondents to release amount of gratuity in favour of the respondent along with interest in terms of the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2022, present intra court appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank submitted that the charge-sheet dated 18.03.2006 issued against respondent had culminated into an order being passed proving charge No. 1 regarding embezzlement and misuse of post causing financial loss to the Bank of quantified sum of Rs. 8,78,071/-. Therefore, for an employee working in the Bank, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be considered disproportionate to the allegations levelled. Counsel further submitted that Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence, causing any damages or loss to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss so caused. Counsel argued that in the present case, since the financial loss occasioned to the Bank had been quantified at Rs. 8,78,071/- the gratuity of respondent ought not to have been ordered to be released. Lastly, it was submitted that the order of suspension dated 26.04.2007 was issued against the respondent prior to superannuation clearly indicating that the charge-sheet was to be served separately upon the respondent. The disciplinary inquiry therefore should be treated as initiated prior to respondent’s superannuation from services. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on the record. 7. The disciplinary inquiry therefore should be treated as initiated prior to respondent’s superannuation from services. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on the record. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another, (2013) 0 AIR (SCW) 4749, while dealing with a question whether the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings in the absence of any provision in the pension rules, held as under: “14. Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads as under: “300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 15. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold - even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.” 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-bank failed to point out any statutory rule/provision, which gives legal sanction to appellant-bank to initiate/conduct disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee. Undisputably, the CC&A Rules of 1958 have been adopted by the appellant-bank to adhere to the procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings against its employees, which otherwise, is applicable upon the employees working in connection with the affairs of the State of Rajasthan. Undisputably, the CC&A Rules of 1958 have been adopted by the appellant-bank to adhere to the procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings against its employees, which otherwise, is applicable upon the employees working in connection with the affairs of the State of Rajasthan. The CC&A Rules of 1958 only deals with the procedure to be followed during disciplinary proceedings and the penalties which may be imposed upon an employee. The legal authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against retired government employees of the State of Rajasthan flows from Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The Rules of 1996 do not apply upon the employees working in the appellant-bank. 9. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that disciplinary proceedings should be treated to have initiated against the respondent from the date of issuance of the suspension order dated 26.07.2004, is not acceptable for the reason that unless provided otherwise by a statute, the disciplinary proceedings commence only after issuance of the charge-sheet against a delinquent employee. 10. In the absence of any statutory rule/provision for initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee, the issuance of charge-sheet dated 18.03.2006 and all subsequent proceedings conducted pursuant thereto by the appellant-bank lacks legal authority/sanction. In the considered opinion of this Court, no legal authority vested with the Bank to proceed against the respondent, after his superannuation from the services, by initiating disciplinary proceedings and imposing penalty of dismissal against the respondent-writ petitioner. The entire disciplinary proceedings till its culmination conducted against respondent, pursuant to the charge sheet 18.03.2006 is declared to be without jurisdiction. 11. In the result, this Court finds that the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by learned Single Bench does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 12. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.