ORDER : Harinath. N, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of memo bearing No. CJM(HRD&Trg)/DE/DC-II/235-NC/2005-12, dated 20.09.2010, by dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner did not perform his duties with sincerity and integrity and that his neglect caused loss of revenue to the department and upholding the order of punishment. 2. The petitioner was imposed the punishment vide memo dated 03.03.2010 whereby the petitioner was imposed the punishment of 15% cut in pension besides recovery of Rs.53,47,167/-towards shortages of material. 3. The petitioner initially joined the respondent/organization as a lineman on 27.01.1969 in TLC Department, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. He was promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer and transferred to TLC Stores, Kadiyam in the year 1985. The petitioner worked at the said station for 17 years till the year 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to MRT Division, Rajahmundry. 4. It is stated that stock verification was conducted by the Head Office for the year 2002 and no shortages were found. It is also submitted that the relieving orders from TLC Stores, Kadiyam were not issued to the petitioner as the petitioner had to regularize all the transactions of the stores and handover the stock charge to the New Officer at that Station. It is further stated that the Officers of respondent/corporation have arbitrarily stopped payment of salary on the premise that the petitioner had not handed over the charge. A memo dated 17.02.2003 was served on the petitioner to hand over the material to the New Officer. 5. As the petitioner is stated to have failed to account for the stock materials, the respondents have not given any charge or position from 31.08.2002 till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2004. The petitioner submits that he could not handover the charge of the material as the New Officer did not permit the petitioner to verify the stock and also to regularize the transactions made in the stores. The material available at the store and the material which was moved out of the store was to be tallied with the movement register/ledger folio(s). 6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was not paid any retiral benefits and as such filed WP.No.2426 of 2006 before this Court. The material available at the store and the material which was moved out of the store was to be tallied with the movement register/ledger folio(s). 6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was not paid any retiral benefits and as such filed WP.No.2426 of 2006 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed on 16.12.2019 with an observation that the petitioner has challenged the punishment imposed on him to the effect of ordering recovery and also withholding of pension by filing the present writ petition. The petitioner submits that during his 17 years service there was no shortage in stock was found and that after retirement and after a lapse of three years of retirement the 5th respondent issued a charge memo dated 16.08.2007. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents could not have issued a charge memo after retirement of the petitioner. It is also stated that an enquiry officer was appointed even before the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo. The said act of the respondents is a clear indication of the vindictive approach against the petitioner. The petitioner was ultimately imposed the punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.53,47,167/-besides 15% cut in pension vide memo dated 30.03.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before appellate authority and which was dismissed on 29.03.2010. 8. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner was required to complete the handing over of stock and charge to his successor on or before 18.03.2003. The Superintendent Engineer has called upon the petitioner to handover charge vide memo dated 15.03.2003. The petitioner has belatedly responded on 06.05.2003 and sought two months time for handing over the charge. It is also submitted that another memo dated 22.09.2003 to the petitioner to handover records, however, the petitioner sought 30 days more time for handing over the material and that even after lapse of one year thereafter the petitioner failed to handover the material. 9. The purposeful delay and dragging of the issue of handing over of material on part of the petitioner is a clear indication of the persistent efforts of the petitioner in protracting the process of handing over of material to the successor officer. 10. 9. The purposeful delay and dragging of the issue of handing over of material on part of the petitioner is a clear indication of the persistent efforts of the petitioner in protracting the process of handing over of material to the successor officer. 10. It is also stated that, it was the official obligation of the petitioner to handover the materials in complete shape to his successor B.Satyanarayana, A.A.E., as per the stock verification reports. 11. It is stated that the petitioner was posted at TLC Division, Rajahmundry, however, the petitioner did not join the new station and no salary was paid from 01.09.2002 onwards. A legal notice was addressed to the petitioner on 01.11.2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.33,44,001.68/-together with interest at 18% per annum towards shortage of material as per the stock verification reports. The petitioner submitted his pension papers on 07.12.2005 after lapse of one and half year from the date of retirement and that the pension papers were not processed as the petitioner had failed to fulfill his official obligation. It is also stated that stock verification reports for the year 2003 and 2004 were finalized and shortages were worked out for an amount of Rs.7,54,274.31/-and Rs.25,24,492.68/-and accordingly notices were issued. The respondent also submits that the petitioner was called upon on several occasions to complete his official obligation of handing over the stock. The petitioner has dodged the same and as such there is no other option for the respondents than to initiate recovery proceedings, which were rightly considered by the disciplinary authority by ordering recovery and cut in pension. The charges are framed and an enquiry officer was appointed on 05.05.2007. A charge sheet dated 16.08.2007 was issued to the petitioner. 12. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer conducted the oral enquiry on 28.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 and on 26.06.2008 and 27.06.2008 in the office of Executive Engineer, Rajahmundry and that the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry. As such arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for shortages worth Rs.53,47,167/- 13. The respondents have brought on record the copy of annual verification report dated 28.03.2005, copy of enquiry report, charge sheet. 14. As such arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for shortages worth Rs.53,47,167/- 13. The respondents have brought on record the copy of annual verification report dated 28.03.2005, copy of enquiry report, charge sheet. 14. As seen from the enquiry report, a detailed enquiry is conducted and several facts relating to the issue of non-accounting of the material to the officer presiding who has taken charge of the stores after transfer of the petitioner. It is also evident that the petitioner did not submit any explanation and was taking the shelter of pendency of writ petitions in the Court and was intimating that the matter is subjudis and failed to submit his explanation. 15. A very detailed enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and the report dated 17.01.2009 was submitted. Considering the report of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment under challenge on 03.03.2010 which was confirmed on 20.09.2010. 16. The charge memo was issued after three years of retirement of the petitioner. An enquiry pertaining to shortage of material at the stores where the petitioner worked for over 17 years before transfer was conducted after retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner was found responsible for shortage of stock of worth of Rs.53,47,167/-in the year 2009 i.e., five years after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 17. The learned counsel for respondent relies on Regulation 23 of GOMs.No.25, dated 03.02.2004, which entitles the respondent to withhold the entire pension and gratuity permanently or withdrawal of pension as the case may be besides recovery of misappropriated amount or loss amount. 18. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice proposing punishment on 11.06.2009 i.e., after over five years of attaining the age of superannuation. 19. Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would empower the respondents to withhold pension or withdraw pension when the departmental proceedings were not instituted when the Government Servant was in service. The said Rule 9(b)(ii) of Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, mandates that the Government is not empowered to withhold or withdraw pension when for any event which took place more than four years before such institution of Enquiry or Departmental Proceedings. 20. The said Rule 9(b)(ii) of Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, mandates that the Government is not empowered to withhold or withdraw pension when for any event which took place more than four years before such institution of Enquiry or Departmental Proceedings. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on GOMs.No.25, dated 03.02.2004, whereby clause – 9 of the said GO reads as follows :- “Whenever an administrative authority holds that a Government servant is responsible for a loss sustained by the Government, it should consider both whether the whole or any part of the loss should be recovered from him in money and whether any other form of disciplinary action should be taken. Whenever a loss is held to be due to fraud on the part of a Government Servant or servants, every endeavor should be made to recover the whole amount lost from the guilty persons. If the failure of a superior officer to exercise proper supervision and control has facilitated the fraud, he should be called strictly to account and suitably dealt with after carefully assessing his personal liability in the matter. The pension of a retiring Government Servant who is involved in any loss or irregularity which is under investigation should on no account be sanctioned until his responsibility in the matter has been finally determined. Whenever a competent authority orders that any amount should be recovered from the Government Servant, otherwise than by forfeiture of his security deposit, if any, on account of a loss sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on his part and he is about to retire from service the amount should be recovered, as far as possible, by deduction from the last pay or leave salary due to him. If any amount still remains to be recovered, the Government Servant should be asked to give his written consent to the recovery of the remaining amount from his pension. When a retired Government servant whose pension has already been sanctioned is held to have caused a loss to the Government by his fraud or negligence while in service and it appears that the amount could be recovered by bringing a suit against him, the matter should be reported to the Government for orders. When a retired Government servant whose pension has already been sanctioned is held to have caused a loss to the Government by his fraud or negligence while in service and it appears that the amount could be recovered by bringing a suit against him, the matter should be reported to the Government for orders. Any fraud or negligence found to have been committed by him while in service, should not be made an execuse for absolving any other Government servants who are also responsible for the loss and are still in service”. 21. Admittedly, the respondents have failed to adhere to what is mandated in the above GO. The law in so far as departmental enquiry and continuance of enquiry after retirement is well settled. Reliance is placed on the following judgments UCO Bank and another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257 , Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others (2014) 7 SCC 260 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. There must be a statutory rule existing to enable the disciplinary authority to continue the disciplinary proceeding despite the officer reaching the age of superannuation. In absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the employee was entitled for full retiral benefits. Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others (1993) 3 SCC 666, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held it illegal to penalize an employee when there is no provision enabling deducting of any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry and to continue the departmental enquiry after superannuation of the employee. 22. In the present set of facts and circumstances the following dates are essential. The petitioner transferred from TLC Stores, Kadiyam on 31.08.2002. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2004, a charge memo issued on 16.08.2007, enquiry report was submitted on 17.01.2009, show cause notice proposing punishment was issued on 11.06.2009. The disciplinary authority order dated is 03.03.2010. The appellate order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is dated 20.09.2010. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and the enquiry was also conducted after four years of the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation. The disciplinary authority order dated is 03.03.2010. The appellate order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is dated 20.09.2010. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and the enquiry was also conducted after four years of the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation. Punishment is imposed close to six years after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 23. It is no doubt a settled law that there should be a statutory power from a rule or regulation which would enable the respondent to initiate and continue the departmental enquiry against the petitioner after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. No such regulation, rule or power is relied upon by the respondent for continuing or conducting the enquiry against the petitioner after he attained the age of superannuation. 24. It is also not clear from the stand of the respondent as to what prevented it from initiating appropriate proceedings before the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. It is also equally unclear as to what all stocks were under the command and control of the petitioner which were unaccounted for by the petitioner. It is also equally unclear as to during which year the shortage was first noticed during the petitioner’s 17 years service at TLC Stores, Kadiyam. 25. The respondents have exhibited utmost lethargy in initiating appropriate action against the petitioner at the appropriate and relevant point of time. It would imply that the petitioner was not solely responsible for the alleged shortage of material if any. It is also evident that the petitioner was constantly dodging the issue of accounting for the material. Ample scope and opportunity was there for the respondents to take appropriate steps at the appropriate time against the petitioner or others concerned. 26. The respondents having failed to initiate and complete disciplinary proceedings before the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The impugned proceedings would have to be held as beyond of the disciplinary authority. As a matter of law the respondent/authorities do not have a statutory and legal provision to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 27. The impugned proceedings would have to be held as beyond of the disciplinary authority. As a matter of law the respondent/authorities do not have a statutory and legal provision to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 27. The petitioner has sought to amend the main prayer in the writ petition by filing IA.No.1 of 2023 seeking a direction to pay salaries of the petitioner from 31.08.2002 till the date of retirement i.e., 30.04.2004 and all other terminal benefits. 28. This Court is not inclined to direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period during which the petitioner was not on duty on his own accord i.e., from 31.08.2002 to 30.04.2004. 29. Considering the illogical manner in which the respondent initiated and conducted disciplinary proceedings after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned proceedings of the disciplinary authority vide order dated 03.03.2010 and the appellate order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner dated 20.09.2010 by holding that as without jurisdiction. 30. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed without costs. The respondents are hereby directed to release the retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.