(1.) The petitioner files this writ application challenging the charge-sheet dated April 30, 1998, report of the enquiry officer dated December 21, 1999 and the second show-cause notice dated August 2, 2002.

(2.) The petitioner was an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway. While the petitioner was posted as an Inspector at Railway Protection Force, Post-Maldah Town, he was served with a charge-sheet dated April 30,1998. The charges levelled against him in the above charge-sheet were lack of supervision and negligence of duty resulting in theft of 445 bags of sugar. In the above charge-sheet dated April 30,1998, the name of the enquiry officer was disclosed fixing the first date of enquiry. In reply, the petitioner submitted his list of defence dated November 30, 1999. During the pendency of the enquiry proceeding the petitioner was transferred by an order of inter divisional transfer dated March 23, 1999. A representation was submitted to the respondent authorities with a prayer for withdrawal of the order of transfer. But the same was not considered by the respondent authorities and the petitioner had to accept his transferred assignment. The petitioner further filed a representation dated June 18, 2002 to supply some documents to him but the same were not supplied to the petitioner. After the conclusion of enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated December 21, 1999. The respondent authorities served a show-cause notice dated August 02,2000 together with the above enquiry report dated December 21, 1999 upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated September 25,2002 to the,above show-cause notice.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Majundar learned Advocate submits that the aforesaid charge-sheet dated April 30, 1998 cannot be sustained in law. Because the name of the enquiry officer and the first date of enquiry was disclosed in the aforesaid charge-sheet. Therefore, the respondent authorities made up the mind to draw the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the charges levelled against him in the. above charge-sheet without giving him an opportunity to submit reply to the above charge-sheet.

(4.) It is further submitted on the behalf of the petitioner that he had already retired from the above service on December 31, 2004. In accordance with the provisions of sub-rule 1 of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, the proceeding-in-question cannot be continued after his retirement from the above service.

(5.) Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of State of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna, reported in AIR 2001 SC 343 to submit that when the name of the enquiry office is disclosed in the charge-sheet, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of biasness. Reliance is placed upon the unreported decision dated June 16, 2004 in the matter of Sr; Jnanadhir Mohan Sen Sharma v. Union of India (In re: W. P. No.8093 (W) 2003) to submit that it is the settled principles of law that the disciplinary proceeding cannot continue after the retirement of the delinquent employee in view of the provisions to sub-rule 1 of Rule 9 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.

(6.) It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that after submitting the reply to the charge-sheet and after participating in the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner cannot pray for quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground of biasness of the respondent authority. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent authority that in view of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the respondents were entitled to conclude the disciplinary proceeding and till it is concluded the petitioner is not entitled to get his terminal benefit. No objection is raised with regard to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner already retired from the services.

(7.) I have given my anxious consideration to the sub