( 1 ) RULE. By consent heard forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner superannuated in the services of the Maharashtra Agro industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , (respondent No. 1) on 31-12-2003. At the relevant time, he was working as Manager (Project ). The petitioner was relieved from the service by issuing letter dated 31-12-2003 after close of office hours. The letter further sets out that the petitioner had done valuable contribution in the development and prosperity of the Corporation.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after the petitioner was served with the relieving order, a memorandum came to be served upon him on the very same day i. e. 31-12-2003 alleging misconduct when the petitioner was working as fertilized Manager (Fertilization) in the Fertilizer Divn. of the Corporation in head Office. According to the petitioner, the charge-sheet is false and fabricated. The petitioner has filed a reply to the said charge-sheet

( 4 ) AFTER being allowed to superannuate and as no enquiry was initiated when the petitioner was in service, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to gratuity and consequently he submitted an application under Rule 7 of the payment of Gratuity Act on 18-7-2004. The respondents however have not paid the gratuity and hence an application was made to the controlling authority. According to the petitioner when the respondent came to know about it, an order of enquiry was initiated by issuing order on 4-2-2005 and appointing an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have no power to conduct enquiry against the petitioner after his superannuation/retirement, from the service of the respondent. Further there is no relationship of employer and employee. As gratuity has not been paid and enquiry is being proceeded with the present Petition.

( 6 ) THE respondents have filed their reply. The major contention in the reply is that the charge-sheet issued on 31-12-2003 was in respect of the lapses / misconduct during the year 2001-02 and 2002-03 and that relieving was subject to the enquiry being conducted against the petitioner in respect of the charge-sheet dated 31-12-2003. The memorandum to initiate enquiry was initiated on 31-12-2003 when he was allowed to retire. It is specifically set out that the petitioner is governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules and an enquiry under the said rules can be conducted even after superannuation where such an enquiry has been initiated before superannuation. It is further set out that Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1992 provides for conducting an enquiry against the employee after superannuation and in view of the said provisions and underlying principle and principle analogous thereto an enquiry can be continued after superannuation.

( 7 ) AT hearing of this Petition, on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that respondent No. 1 has not adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1982 which permit an enquiry to conduct even after superannuation and in these circumstances the question of continuing the enquiry does not arise. The maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules do not provide for continuing enquiry which was initiated at the time when the employee was in service. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O. S. F. C. and others, reported in (1999) 3 scc 666 in support of his contention that in absence of the provisions for continuing an enquiry the enquiry cannot be continued.

( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondent, the learned Counsel fairly concedes that they have not adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. However, places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. State sugar Corporation Ltd. , and ors. vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, reported in 2008 (II) CLR 563. It is submitted that the enquiry can be cont