Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for seeking directions to the respondent – Municipal Council to finalize the pension of the petitioner and make payment along with other monetary dues, including payment of gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as are payable to the petitioner. By way of amendment, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the departmental enquiry initiated against him vide letter dated 10th July, 2009, be held to be illegal and bad in law.

3. The brief facts as are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are as under :-

The petitioner claims that he joined the services of respondent – Municipal Council w.e.f. 25th June, 1985 in the capacity of Clerk in class III cadre. Upon adorning permanency in the services of Municipal Council, the petitioner was posted as a Clerk in various Departments, viz. Birth and Death Section, Property Tax Revision, G.A.D., etc.

4. It is claimed by the petitioner that he completed 58 years of age on 30th September, 2003. As such, in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Rules, for the sake of brevity), the petitioner stood superannuated by an order dated 28th March, 2003, with effect from 30th September, 2003.

5. The petitioner further claims that upon retirement, his total length of service was assessed to 18 years, 3 months and 3 days on the post of Clerk in the respondent – Municipal Council and was given provisional pension to the tune of Rs.1,275/-.

6. It is claimed by the petitioner that in the light of provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, he was served with a charge-sheet proposing an enquiry against him after his retirement as it was noticed that from 1997 to 1999-2000 he had collected the copying charges, however, neither the receipt book was submitted by him nor the amount was deposited in the office of the respondent Municipal Council and as such has violated the provisions of section 79 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. One more charge was levelled against the petitioner, that while posted as Storekeeper, he had not carried out audit of the recoveries made under the heads “house tax”, “water tax”, “education fund”, etc.

7. In addition to above, the petitioner was also charged with non compliance of short-falls noticed in the audit and not responding to the show cause notice issued to him.

8. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and the said enquiry proceedings were completed and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, on 29th December, 2009 by giving finding that both the charges were proved against the petitioner.

9. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings are not tenable against him in view of the fact that he stood retired with effect from 30th September, 2003. The provisions of Rule 27 of the Pension Rules, empower the respondent to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner with prior sanction of the Government and is required to be restricted in respect of an event which took place within four years before such initiation. According to him, perusal of the allegations against him reflects that the same was in relation to the year 1997 to 1999-2000 and the non-compliance of the audit report pertained to the period 1991-95. As such, in his submission, the proceedings could have been initiated prior to retirement of the petitioner, i.e. 30th September, 2003 and in any case not later than four years from the date reflected in the charges levelled against the petitioner. According to him, as such the disciplinary proceedings itself are not tenable.

10. Mr Thigle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Municipal Coun