( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed by the General manager, Adilabad District Co-operative central Bank Limited, aggrieved by judgment dated October 13, 2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 11338 of 2000. By impugned judgment, the learned single Judge set aside the proceedings dated july 27, 2000 issued by the bank withholding the retirement benefits and continuing any disciplinary proceedings subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, first respondent herein, on the ground that no disciplinary enquiry can be held against an employee who was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

( 2 ) THE facts are admitted which in brief are as follows: The first respondent at the relevant time was person-in-charge of the Primary agricultural Co-operative Society, Tandur. At or about 1995, some financial irregularities in sanctioning of the loans were alleged. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with Section 51 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 ("the act" ). In the meanwhile the first respondent was promoted as Manager. The Divisional co-operative Officer appears to have submitted a report on March 3, 1999. On the basis of the said report, a charge memo dated June 16, 1999 was issued against the first respondent. Other managers and Supervisors were also prima facie found responsible for alleged lapses and misappropriation of funds of the bank. The charge framed against the first respondent is as follows: charge:the Manager/pic has failed in discharging his legitimate duties and responsibilities as Manager. Allegation:the Manager/pic has disbursed loans in his tenure without observing formalities, passing resolution, verification of accounts as on date with cash book and drawals receipts and payments, proforma of balance sheet, profit and loss account. The person-in-charge has not seen the books of account and caused for misutilisation of funds of the society. His deliberate dereliction of duties caused misappropriation of funds of the society. The lapses are of serious nature and relate to misappropriation of funds and grave financial irregularities.

( 3 ) THE first respondent submitted explanation on June 30, 1999. Even before any progress could be made in the enquiry, the appellant passed the impugned order on july 27, 1999 according permission for the first respondent to retire on July 31, 1999 observing that the same is"without prejudice to the disciplinary action to be initiated against him as per the Service Regulations". Though he was retired he was not paid his provident fund, gratuity, leave salary and group insurance amounts. He made number of representations to the appellant. It may be mentioned that after his retirement the appellant issued a notice dated July 21, 2000 to show-cause as to why steps should not be taken for recovery of the amounts. Therefore, the first respondent filed writ petition to quash the said memo issued in 1999 and also prayed for a declaration that non-payment of retiral benefits is illegal. The appellant defended the case inter alia contending that the bank has incurred loss due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and that as he was retired subject to initiation of enquiry it is permissible for the employer to hold disciplinary enquiry. The learned single Judge by the impugned order placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in Bhagirthi Jena v. Board of Directors, O. S. F. C. , AIR 1999 SC 1841 : 1999 (3) SCC 666 : 1999-I-LLJ-1236 allowed the writ petition holding that retiral benefits cannot be withheld.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel, Sri R. V. Nagabhushana Rao, appearing for the appellant-Bank contends that there is no estoppel against initiating proceedings for recovery of loss caused to the bank, that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi jena (supra) has no application and that as the first respondent was allowed to retire subject to initiation of disciplinary enquiry, there cannot be a