Pramath Patnaik, J.

In W.P.(S) No. 3934 of 2013, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of memo no.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 passed by respondent no.3 pertaining to initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, invoking provisions of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for a declaration that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of memo no.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, and prayer has been made for stay of operation of the impugned memo no.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued by respondent no.3 during pendency of the writ petition.

2. Vide order dated 17.09.2013 this Court has been pleased to pass orders to the effect that no final order shall be passed in pursuance of the resolution contained in Annexure-2 against the petitioner.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that initially the petitioner was appointed under Bihar Finance Services and retired from services on 31.01.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been averred in the writ application that while petitioner was continuing in services, no departmental proceeding or any kind of proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for alleged omissions or commissions by the petitioner. Since, no post retirement benefits was given to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.(S) No.4929 of 2012, which is being disposed of along with this writ petition by the consent of the parties.

4. In W.P.(S) No.4929 of 2012, this Court vide order dated 03.09.2012 directed to the respondent authorities to release the pensionary benefits and other benefits, as claimed by the petitioner or to show cause as to why post retiral benefits are not being paid to the petitioner, within four weeks from today as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After retirement from services a departmental proceeding has been initiated vide memo No.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby a departmental proceeding has been sought to be initiated by invoking of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been averred that the allegations as disclosed in Annexure-2 to the writ application, pertains to period when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (I/c) from 04.11.2003 to 31.05.2005 and as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (I/c) from 01.06.2005 to 10.07.2007 in Chirkunda Circle, Chirkunda. During the said period the petitioner has been found to have caused revenue loss to the department by passing order of refund against the hard coke industries and a detailed charge-sheet has been attached in Prapatra (Ka). Being aggrieved by the initiation of departmental proceeding, the petitioner being constrained has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.

5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner relates to an event, which is prior to four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner and in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, no departmental proceeding could have been initiated against the retired person, which is beyond the period of four years from the date of retirement. Learned senior counsel further submits that from the memo of charges, it is quite evident that the departmental proceeding has been initiated on 19.02.2013 and at best the departmental p