The court established that disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement cannot automatically continue after retirement, and any conversion of proceedings under Rule 43B must be notified to the employee. The petitioner's entitlement to dues and benefits upon retirement was affirmed, and the delay in concluding the criminal case was deemed unjust.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The chargesheet contained as many as eight charges. For the self same charge a first information report was filed. It does not appear that the said first information report has resuited in filing of a chargesheet before any criminal court. The petitioner gave a reply to the chargesheet.

3. In the meantime the petitioner was put under suspension. On 22nd December, 2000, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer fixed 27th December, 2000 as the first date of enquiry. On 27th December, 2000, the petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer appeared before the Enquiry Officer. While the petitioner submitted his written explanation about the charges, the Presenting Officer did not bother to file any document or any written explanation or anything before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. In respect of the first charge, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that it was submitted by the Presenting Officer that handwriting expert can only tell as to whether the subject bills which were said to be false bear the signature of the petitioner or not. Handwriting Officer was not called by the prosecution and accordingly the matter stood concluded. In relation to the second charge which alleged that the petitioner maintained four cash books and not one cash book the Enquiry Officer accepted that there were four Drawing & Disbursing Officers dealing with four different Account Heads and accordingly there was requirement to maintain four cash books and one cash book could not be maintained. This contention was accepted before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer. The third charge was disbursement of Rs. 50,000/- but not entering such disbursement in the cash book. The petitioner contended that no cash book was maintained for discretionary grant and accordingly the same was not mentioned. The Enquiry Officer opined that separate cash book should have been maintained by the petitioner. The fourth charge was that in terms of the Rules in one Department only one advice register is required to be maintained but the petitioner maintained two registers. The defence of the petitioner was that it was not his duty to maintain advice register. It was the job of the Accountant. That was accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The fifth charge was that some pages of one register have been torn. The defence of the petitioner was similar to Charge no. 4 and the same defence was accepted. The sixth charge was non-verification by the petitioner of disbursements during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 from the treasury. The defence of the petitioner that he was not obliged to do so. The same was accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The seventh charge was that once in a week T.V. Slips should have beep received by the petitioner but he did not do so. The petitioner contended that he had no authority to do so and such contention was accepted. The eighth charge was that the petitioner participated in preparation of forged documents to assist fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 34,67,464.48/-. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was that there is nothing on record which would suggest that the petitioner participated in forgery of any document.

4. Inasmuch as some of those charges were then under investigation in terms of the first information report, the Enquiry Officer did not conclude them and in relation to the remaining charges exonerated the petitioner. On the basis of this opinion of the Enquiry Officer which has got two parts, namely, the part, which deals with the matters pertaining to forgery of documents and putting or signatures in the bills etc, then under investigation in terms of the first information report, was left open and had not been concluded and the other part in respect of those charges where no investigation was required and the defence was that