ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he has instructions not to proceed further with the writ petition bearing SWP No. 705/2003. His statement is taken on record. 2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, SWP No. 705/2003, shall stand dismissed as not pressed. 3. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. SWP No. 366/2007 1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “A. Writ of certiorari quashing the order of respondent No. 2 dated 31.08.2004 being patently illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the law of service jurisprudence particularly the Law and Rules governing the issue. B. Writ of certiorari for quashing the order of respondent No. 2 bearing No.VIII-6/2005 dated 23.09.2005 again being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and speaks about the working efficiency of the then respondent No. 2. C. Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty by treating the aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2004 & 23.09.2005 as non-est and also grant all the consequential benefits Or in the alternative D. Writ of mandamus directing respondents to settle, release and pay proportionate pension and also all other full post retiral benefits to the petitioner along with penal rate of interest.” 2. The background facts those stem out from perusal of instant petition are that petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), as Constable on 12.08.1991; upon which he was provided enrollment No.910840126 and was adjusted in 84 Bn of CRPF. While serving in the Belt Force, in the month of March 1997, based upon a deep-rooted conspiracy he was falsely implicated in a case on the alleged charges of disobedience, found upon the influence of liquor and absented from duty without permission. A Departmental inquiry was conducted. He was held guilty and accordingly, dismissed from services vide order dated 06.06.1997 w.e.f. 06.06.1997, and by that time he had rendered 5 years 9 months and 24 days total service. 3. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 06.06.1997, petitioner challenged the same in SWP No. 982/1997.The said petition was allowed, quashing order of dismissal. Thereafter, petitionerin terms of order dated 29.02.2000, was reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.02.2000. 4. 3. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 06.06.1997, petitioner challenged the same in SWP No. 982/1997.The said petition was allowed, quashing order of dismissal. Thereafter, petitionerin terms of order dated 29.02.2000, was reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.02.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the judgment dated 08.11.1999 passed by this Court, the respondent-department again in April, 2000 started Departmental inquiry against the petitioner which culminated into passing of an order dated 27.08.2000, whereby the order of dismissal was changed to withholding of an increment for one year w.e.f., 02.09.2000 to 01.09.2001 with cumulative effect, but no decision with respect to the intervening period i.e., 06.06.1997 to 09.02.2000 was taken by the respondent-department. It is stated that during the pendency of SWP No. 705/2003, the petitioner was transferred to 152 Bn. of the Force and while serving there in the month of February 2004, again petitioner was falsely implicated on the alleged charges of found under the influence of liquor and absented from duty without permission and ultimately another Departmental inquiry was conducted and without providing an opportunity of being heard as well as to cross-examining the witnesses produced against him, the alleged charges were shown proved without any evidence and vide order dated 31.08.2004 passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was compulsory retired from service with an observation that the petitioner shall be provided pension and other post retiral benefits and by that time after reinstatement the petitioner had rendered 4 years, 06 months and 22 days of service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after retirement, vide communication dated 23.09.2004, petitioner was asked to fill the pension papers for processing his pension case, however, after submitting the same, neither pension nor any other post retiral benefits was provided to him. It is stated that before amending the instant petition, the stand taken by the respondents in their objections was that out of 13 years, 20 days total service rendered by the petitioner, 3 years, 7 months and 13 days service was not qualifying and his qualifying service was coming out to be 9 years 5 months, and 07 days, therefore, due to non-completion of 10 years qualifying service for pension, petitioner is entitled to service gratuity only and, accordingly, an amendment was issued vide office letter NO. VIII-6/2005 dated 23.09.2005. VIII-6/2005 dated 23.09.2005. It is stated that the said communication was never supplied to the petitioner and this fact was taken note of by the counsel for the petitioner on the day i.e., 19.11.2016 when the case was listed and considered by this Court and it was only on the direction of this Court, letter dated 23.09.2005 was provided to the petitioner. 6. The impugned order dated 31.08.2004 is being challenged in the instant petition inter alia on the following grounds: 1. That the order of compulsory retirement relating to the petitioner is required to be set aside as the same is against law and facts governing the issue; 2. That since the petitioner had already rendered more than 10 years’ service in the Force and as per Pension Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to get proportionate pension and also full post retiral benefits; 3. That order 23.09.2005 vide which the earlier order dated 31.08.2005 has been amended, on the face of it is illegal containing no reason for denying pension; 4. That the order dated 23.09.2005 is also required to be set side as the same itself shows and establishes that respondent No. 2 before issuing order dated 31.08.2004 have not legally and properly applied his mind and considered the case that whether petitioner is having the qualifying service for getting proportionate pension and gratuity or not; 5. That the impugned orders dated 31.09.2004 and 23.09.2005 are required to be set aside on the ground that they are not showing that how and in what manner the respondents are calculating that the petitioner is not having 10 years qualifying service for getting pension benefits. 7. The stand taken by the respondents is that petitioner while on security duty of store at Parade Ground on 18.02.2004 was found absent from duty.He was found at Gate No.1 of GC, CRPF, Pinjore in intoxicated condition and brought inside the camp by quick reaction team and guard. On that day he had consumed alcohol and was under its influence as per the medical report dated 18.02.2004.Not only this, he did not attend marker on 19.02.2004 and was found again in intoxicated condition outside the camp. It is averred that respondents after due procedure of law, conducted Departmental enquiry and the charges leveled against him were proved and, accordingly, a decision was taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. 8. It is averred that respondents after due procedure of law, conducted Departmental enquiry and the charges leveled against him were proved and, accordingly, a decision was taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Perusal of the record tends to show that initially on 06.03.1997 the petitioner was found under the influence of liquor. On 07.03.1997, he was found absent from guard duty. He was also found guilty of disobedience of certain orders issued to him. A Departmental inquiry was conducted and petitioner was found guilty and accordingly, he was dismissed from services vide order dated 06.06.1997 w.e.f. 06.06.1997.By that time he had rendered 5 years 9 months and 24 days total service. The dismissal order dated 06.06.1997 was challenged by the petitioner and this Court vide order dated 08.11.1999 quashed the order of dismissal and respondents were left free to decide the fate of intervening period. Thereafter, in compliance to the order passed by this Court, the then Commandant 84 Bn. issued an order dated 29.02.2000, whereby petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.02.2000 and a Departmental inquiry was also ordered to be finalized as to the intervening period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement. A Departmental inquiry was conducted which culminated into passing of an order dated 27.08.2000,whereby the order of dismissal was changed to withholding of an increment for one-year w.e.f., 02.09.2000 to 01.09.2001, with cumulative effect, but no decision with regard to the intervening period was taken. 10. A look at the material on record makes it further clear that in the month of February, 2004, when the petitioner was transferred to 152 Bn. again charges of found under the influence of liquor and absented from duty without permission were leveled against the petitioner and ultimately, a Departmental inquiry was conducted and the alleged charges were proved and vide order dated 31.08.2004, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service with an observation/finding that the petitioner shall be provided pension and other post retiral benefits and by that time after reinstatement the petitioner had rendered 4 years, 06 months and 22 days of service. The petitioners filled the pension papers and submitted the same to respondent No. 2 for processing his pension case, however, petitioner was not provided pension as well as other post retiral benefits. 11. The petitioners filled the pension papers and submitted the same to respondent No. 2 for processing his pension case, however, petitioner was not provided pension as well as other post retiral benefits. 11. Undisputedly, after conducting Departmental inquiry vide order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the competent authority, i.e., respondent No.2, the petitioner was compulsory retired from service and was held entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. However, after a period of one year, i.e., in the month of September 2005, an amendment was issued vide office letter dated 23.09.2005, stating therein that due to non-qualifying service the petitioner is entitled to service gratuity only. The amendment order (supra) was never supplied to the petitioner and he came to know about passing of the said order only in the year 2007 when reference of the amended order 23.09.2005 was made in the objections filed by the respondents to the writ petition. 12. A careful reading of the judgment dated 08.11.1999passed by this Court in SWP No. 982 of 1997 makes it clear that while quashing the earlier dismissal order dated 06.06.1997 of the petitioner, respondent-authorities were left free to hold fresh enquiry and also to determine the intervening period i.e. 06.06.1997 to 09.02.2000. 13. In compliance to aforesaid order of this Court, a departmental inquiry was conducted and order of dismissal dated 06.06.1997 was changed to withholding of an increment for one-year w.e.f. 02.09.2000 to 01.09.2001 with cumulative effect but no decision with respect to intervening period was taken by respondent-department, i.e., 02 years 08 months and 03 days. 14. The competent authority at the first instance took a lenient view and granted pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.08.2004. The petitioner was asked to fill the pension papers for processing his pension case. However, later on respondent-authorities took a view that petitioner’s qualifying service is 09 years 05 month and 07 days, i.e., less than 10 years and hence, no pension is admissible. The respondent-authorities ought to have taken a decision with regard to the intervening period, i.e., 06.06.1997 to 09.02.2000 at the initial stage when order of dismissal dated 06.06.1997 was changed to withholding of an increment for one year. The respondent-authorities ought to have taken a decision with regard to the intervening period, i.e., 06.06.1997 to 09.02.2000 at the initial stage when order of dismissal dated 06.06.1997 was changed to withholding of an increment for one year. Admittedly, a Departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the alleged charges of under the influence of liquor and absented from duty without permission and vide order dated 31.08.2004 petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and he was held entitled to pension and other post retiral benefits. Thereafter vide communication dated 23.09.2004, petitioner was asked to fill the pension papers for processing his pension case. The order dated 31.08.2004 has been passed by the competent authority after conducting the Departmental inquiry, therefore, Departmental proceedings could not be again instituted against the petitioner after his compulsory retirement from service to the effect that out of 13 years 20 days of total service, 03 years 07 months and 13 days service rendered by the petitioner was not qualifying service and his qualifying service comes to 09 years, 05 months and 07 days. 15. The Allahabad High Court in a case WRIT -A No. -6237 of 2022 titled as Brahamnad Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others decided on 15 July, 2022 has held as under:- “From perusal of the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, it is very much clear that once there is no rule occupying the field for disciplinary proceeding against an employee after retirement, proceeding so initiated or continued after retirement, is not sustainable as it de-hors the rules and liable to be set aside. In the present case too, petitioner was retired on 30.04.2018 thereafter disciplinary proceeding was initiated vide order dated 07.07.2021 and charge sheet was served upon him on 07.04.2022, i.e., undisputedly disciplinary proceeding was initiated after retirement of the petitioner whereas Regulations 1984 does not provide any disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee. Even in case of adoption of rules applicable to the State Government employees under Regulation 43 of Regulations 1984, once the service is not pensionable under Regulation 47 of Regulations 1984, no action can be taken against him under Article 351-A of CSR or any other rule adopted by respondents under Regulation 43 of Regulations 1984. Therefore, impugned order dated 07.07.2021 and subsequent charge sheet dated 07.07.2022 are bad in law and liable to be set aside.” 16. Therefore, impugned order dated 07.07.2021 and subsequent charge sheet dated 07.07.2022 are bad in law and liable to be set aside.” 16. The Punjab High court in a case (CWP-5842-2022 titled Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana and others while relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case Punjab State Corporation Ltd. Patiala and others v. Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 666 , has held that departmental enquiry cannot be initiated against an employee for the event that occurred four years prior to the issuance of charge Sheet. It was further observed that a retired employee should be left to live in peace during his twilight zone. 17. In the present case, petitioner was compulsorily retired on 31.08.2004. Thereafter vide communication dated 23.09.2004, he was also asked to fill up the pension papers for processing his pension case. In compliance to the communication (supra) petitioner submitted the forms to respondent No.2. However, after a lapse of more than one year an amendment was issued vide office letter dated 23.09.2005 by the respondents to the effect that due to non-completion of 10 years qualifying service for pension the petitioner is entitled to service gratuity only. Since the events, on the basis of which the Departmental enquiry was conducted, had taken place more than one year before the date of passing of an amendment vide office letter dated 23.09.2005, rejecting the claim of petitioner for pension, the respondents, therefore, having compulsorily retired the petitioner from service, allowing pension and other post retiral benefits vide order dated 31.08.2004,could not have issued an amendment (supra) after a period of more than one year withholding his pension. 18. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 23.09.2005 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the respondent-authorities are directed to release the proportionate pension and other post retiral benefits in favour of petitioner in terms of order dated 31.08.2004within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. 19. With aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of while making it clear that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.