ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in not releasing balance leave salary fixed deposit along with interest as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of the 1st respondent Bank Employees Service Regulations and law laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and further direct the respondents to release the petitioner?s withheld leave salary fixed deposited along with interest with all consequential reliefs and benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The 1st respondent bank is a A.P. State partnered District Cooperative Central Bank established under the AP Co-operative Societies Act and is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner lastly worked as Asst. General Manager and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2009. During 2005, it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner about the alleged misappropriation regarding the purity of Gold pledged to the bank by one of the loanees to avail gold loan during 1996 and the same was informed to the 1st respondent, who also lodged a police complaint. b) The petitioner was issued with charge memo on 16.04.2005 vide Rc.No.B9/935/G.L./2004-05 alleging misappropriations of the year 2002. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 23.05.2005 denying all the allegations that he has no role in giving loans against the gold and that he never had the custody of the gold. The 1st respondent not satisfying with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer on 20.10.2005 vide Rc.No.B9/935/GL/2004-05. c) Thereafter, the enquiry officer was changed by the 1st respondent on 30.12.2006 vide Rc.No.B9/935/GL/2004-05. Since, then the enquiry is still pending. On 28.02.2009, the petitioner retired as Assistant General Manager on attaining the age of Superannuation of 58 years vide Rc.No.B9/Estt./2008-09, dated 28.02.2009 with condition subject to disposal of pending charges. d) All the retirement benefits were released except eight months leave salary was not released. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent to release the leave salary worth Rs.2,00,000/- as he met with an accident and he was in need of money to meet expenses. d) All the retirement benefits were released except eight months leave salary was not released. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent to release the leave salary worth Rs.2,00,000/- as he met with an accident and he was in need of money to meet expenses. The 1st respondent was willing to release the leave salary on condition that Rs.80,000/- will be taken as a fixed deposit as security and upon giving an understanding that the same will be adjusted towards the bank, if the case against the petitioner is proved. As the petitioner is in pathetic state, he has given undertaking dated 24.08.2009 to the effect that the fixed deposit so taken shall be treated as security to be adjusted towards the bank in the event if the case is decided against him. e) The bye-laws of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Warangal does not have any provision to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement and in such an event retirement benefits cannot be withheld after the employee has retired. Till date the enquiry is pending and the respondents are not releasing the leave salary along with interest even after retiring as early as on 28.02.2009. Aggrieved by the same the writ petition is filed. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in brief, is as follows: a) The 2nd respondent admitted the facts those that are not specifically admitted in the counter. All the retirement benefits of the petitioner were already released subsequent to his retirement including the leave encashment. The allegation that terminal benefits regarding part of leave encashment was withheld in lieu of departmental proceedings is absolutely false. The petitioner executed letter dated 24.08.2009 that his terminal benefits were paid consequent to his retirement, but as the criminal case was pending, he voluntarily deposited Rs.80,000/- under fixed deposit as security with the bank duly discharged by him in favour of the bank until the criminal case is disposed of. b) The petitioner mislead the facts, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.(a) The main contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are that all the employees of the respondent bank are governed by service regulations. In the service regulations of the respondent bank there is no provision to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee. 4.(a) The main contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are that all the employees of the respondent bank are governed by service regulations. In the service regulations of the respondent bank there is no provision to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee. (b) The relationship of employee and employer comes to an end soon after retirement of an employee and since there is no provision in the service regulations of the bank to continue disciplinary proceedings on retirement of an employee and that the disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee is not permissible. (c) Action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notice and trying to fix the liability on the petitioner by further withholding the fixed deposit of the petitioner and all terminal benefits is illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. (d) Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the writ petition is liable to be allowed as prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that: (1) the petitioner voluntarily deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- under fixed deposit as security, with the respondent bank, duly discharged by the petitioner in favour of the bank, until the case is decided which were charges against the petitioner and the same is evidenced vide letter dated 24.08.2009 filed along with the counter. (2) The terminal benefits of the petitioner were paid long ago and the execution of fixed deposit was made in connection with his responsibility towards the misuse of gold loan which is the subject matter of the criminal case. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the record. 7. The Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena v Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., (1999) 3 SCC 666 observed as follows: ?7. In view of the absence of such a 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 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.? 8. This Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association V NOIDA and others, AIR 2011 SC 2112 examined the issue and held that the competence of an authority to hold an enquiry against an employee who has retired, depends upon the statutory rules which govern the terms and conditions of his service and while deciding the said case, reliance was placed on various earlier judgments of this Court including B.J.Shelat v State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1978 SC 1109 , Ramesh Chandra Sharma v Punjab National Bank and another, 2007 (9) SCC and UCO Bank and another v Rajinder Lal Capoor, AIR 2008 SC 1831 . 9. The Apex Court in Dev Prakash Tiwari U.P.Cooperative Institutional Service Board, (2014) 7 SCC 260 in para 8 while reiterating the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena case referred supra, held as under: ?8.Once the appellant has retired from service on 31.03.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceedings evenfor the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retrial benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must beheld that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retrial benefits.? It is further held in paras 9 and 10 as under: ?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 dismissal and up to the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the enquiry has lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of emoluments payable to him. 10. 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 dismissal and up to the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the enquiry has lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of emoluments payable to him. 10. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High court are set aide and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salaries and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay him all the retrial benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there has been no disciplinary proceedings or orders passed therein. No costs.? 10. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v Rabindranath Choubey, 2020 (18) SCC71 at para 44 observed as follows: ?The relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are the determining factor as to whether or not the domestic inquiry or disciplinary proceedings can be held against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation, and what kind of punishment may be imposed on him thereafter. Punishment of dismissal or removal from service can be imposed even after superannuation depending on the specific rules which are applicable to the employee concerned.? 11. The respondents in their counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition have not denied the fact that there is no provision in their bye-laws/service regulations of the bank to continue disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee. This Court opines that since the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as borne on record, were not concluded prior to the Superannuation of the respondent, in the absence of any specific rule or bye-law to continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired employee of the bank, there is no justification for the respondent bank to withhold the retrial benefits of the petitioner. 12. Taking into consideration the law, laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to and discussed above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The impugned proceedings Rc.No.Admn/HRD-I/JFC/2014-15 dated 13.01.2014 of the 2nd respondent is set aside declaring the same as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of Constitution of India. The impugned proceedings Rc.No.Admn/HRD-I/JFC/2014-15 dated 13.01.2014 of the 2nd respondent is set aside declaring the same as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to pay all the remaining retrial benefits and any deposit of the petitioner illegally withheld along with interest and consequential relief within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.