JUDGMENT : SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent corporation. 2. The matter involves a pure question of law, and therefore, the same is hereby decided at the admission stage. 3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the charge sheet dated 08/08/2022, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition." 4. The challenge is laid to the charge sheet dated 8th August 2022, issued against the petitioner, on the ground that no inquiry proceeding can be initiated after the retirement of an employee. 5. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Accounts on 5th June 1996, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service, on 31st August 2021 and prior to his retirement, the petitioner was duly issued, 'No Dues Certificate' from all concerned units, where he was posted, during the service period. He next submitted that an office order was issued on 12th April 2021, wherein the inquiry officer was appointed, but no charge sheet has ever been served upon the petitioner, prior to his retirement, and that has been served, on 8th August 2022 only. He submitted that Civil Service Regulations have not been adopted, admittedly, in the department of the respondent Corporation, and it has its own Rules and Regulations regarding the inquiry. 6. He added that Rule 709(gha) of the Working Manual of the respondent Corporation reads as under:- 7. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the aforementioned provision prescribes that if an employee attains the age of superannuation while pendency of the departmental proceeding, such enquiry can be continued for the recovery of financial loss from the retiral dues of such employee. 8. He has further drawn attention towards Rule 709(cha) of the Working Manual, which also reads as under:- 9. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that this provision says that the disciplinary proceedings can be done against an employee even after his retirement, provided the time period of four years has not been elapsed from the date of inquiry. 8. He has further drawn attention towards Rule 709(cha) of the Working Manual, which also reads as under:- 9. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that this provision says that the disciplinary proceedings can be done against an employee even after his retirement, provided the time period of four years has not been elapsed from the date of inquiry. He submitted that Rule 709(cha) is not applicable in the present case as the date of the incident is between 21st January 2013 to 24th December 2013, and as per the office letter dated 12th April 2021, whereby an inquiry officer was appointed, the same is about more than eight years, from the date of the incident, more so the date of enquiry is 8th August 2022. 10. He further argued that so far as the provision regarding 709(gha) is concerned, that would also not attract and cover the field of the present issue, as though the inquiry officer was appointed on 12th April 2021, that is prior to the date of superannuation, but the charge sheet has admittedly been served upon the petitioner on the 8th August 2022, which is after the retirement, and, as per the settled law, the disciplinary proceeding commenced after the charge-sheet is furnished to the delinquent employee, and in that sense only, it would be termed as pending enquiry. 11. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the chargesheet has been issued after the superannuation of the employee, i.e., on 8th August 2022, and therefore, the issuance of the charge-sheet itself goes against Rule 709(gha) of the Working Manual of the respondent Corporation, and therefore, the same is unsustainable. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that on 12th April 2021, the Inquiry Officer has been appointed to inquire into the matter, and therefore, the proceeding has been started from the date of appointment of the Inquiry Officer. He submitted that the petitioner retired on 31st August 2021, and the proceedings have been initiated on 12th April 2021, by the office order, whereby the Inquiry Officer has been appointed, and therefore, there is no unlawfulness while undertaking the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner retired on 31st August 2021, and the proceedings have been initiated on 12th April 2021, by the office order, whereby the Inquiry Officer has been appointed, and therefore, there is no unlawfulness while undertaking the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. He next added that in furtherance of the order dated 12th April 2021, the Inquiry Officer prepared the charge-sheet and issued the same on, 8th August 2022, as such, there is no ambiguity or erroneousness in the same. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the charge-sheet dated 8th August 2022 issued to the petitioner is under challenge. When this Court examines the matter in facts and law of the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner has been retired on 31st August 2021, after attaining the age of superannuation, and the charge-sheet has been issued on 8th August 2022, which are the undisputed facts between the parties. The letter/order dated 12th April 2021 by which the Inquiry Officer has been appointed, is also an undisputed fact. 14. This court has noticed that the respondent Corporation has its own Working Manual, which prescribes the rules for inquiry against the employees of the Department, and Rule 709(gha) reveals that the pending departmental inquiry can go on for recovery of financial loss, after the retirement of the employee, if the same was pending during his service period. 15. The date of commencement of the inquiry proceeding, has been considered, in the celebrated judgment of Union of India Vs. K.V. Janakiraman , reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , wherein it has been held that the departmental proceedings can commence only when the charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. In fact, pendency of inquiry would be if such proceeding is commenced. Paras 16 & 17 of the said Judgment read as under:- "16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p. 196, para 39) “(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2) * (3) * (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before; 17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions." 16. Further in the judgments rendered in the cases of Coal India Limited versus Saroj Kumar Mishra reported in (2007) 9 SCC 625 and Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 , it has been reiterated that the disciplinary proceeding commences only when the charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. 17. So far as the present case is concerned, this is an admitted fact that the charge-sheet has been issued on 8th August 2022, i.e., after the retirement of the delinquent employee, and therefore, the date of commencement of the disciplinary proceeding would be 8th August 2022, and therefore, the provisions of Rule 709(gha), do not attract in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. Further the Working Manual clause/table 709(cha) also does not favour proceedings undertaken by the respondent Corporation as the date of initiation of inquiry is 8th August 2025. 19. It is trite law that the things should be done in the manner prescribed and not otherwise, whereas the charge sheet, which has been issued against the petitioner, is not in consonance with the provisions of Rules 709 (gha) and 709 (cha) thus, the same is impermissible. 20. Consequently, the charge sheet dated 8th August 2022 issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 21. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 22. Consequences to follow.