ORDER

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, these petitions are analogously heard and being decided by this common order. Facts are being taken from W.P. No.2098 of 2010.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to supply the copies of the documents as mentioned in Annexure-P/9 and other representation.

3. Facts of the case in short are as under:-

3.1. The petitioner in the services of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited was posted as District Manager in the year 1986. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 14.3.2005 in respect of irregularities in sale and purchase of Mung and causing loss to the tune of Rs.18,52,000/-. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges. The detail enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the effect that charge No.1 is partially proved and rest of the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and on 8.8.2007 passed an order of dismissal from service with recovery of Rs.13,38,000/-. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order by way of W.P. No.4950 of 2007. Vide order dated 24.7.2009, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority first to issue a show-cause notice specifying the reason of disagreement with the Eqnuiry Officer. After remand, the petitioner was taken into the service and show-cause notice dated 22.12.2009 was issued to him. The petitioner submitted a preliminary reply and in order to clarify certain position requested for some additional documents. The petitioner also sent a legal notice when the documents were not supplied. During pendency of the said enquiry before the disciplinary authority, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service w.e.f. 30.6.2010. The petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking direction from the respondent to supply the documents.

3.2. Vide order dated 23.4.2010, this Court restrained the respondent to proceed further with the Departmental Eqnuiry. The respondent filed a reply on 6.8.2010. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted for final hearing. Now the petitioner filed an application for taking document on record on 25.8.2023. Along with the same, the order dated 5.5.2010 is filed whereby the disciplinary authority had passed the order of penalty of compulsory retirement with recovery of Rs.13,38,000/- from the retiral dues. Since there is an interim order in the writ petition, therefore, vide order dated 6.5.2010, the aforesaid punishment order has been kept in abeyance in order to avoid the contempt proceeding.

4. Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Service Rules, there is no such provision for proceeding further with Departmental Enquiry after retirement, therefore, now the enquiry is liable to be treated as dropped and the retiral dues of the petitioner are liable to be released without making any recovery. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon couple of judgments delivered in the cases of Central Bank of India v. C. Bernard reported in (1991) 1 SCC 319 & Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666.

5. Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the enquiry which had been initiated during service is liable to be continued after retirement under the provisions of Pension rules and the order of punishment has already been passed before retirement of the petitioner and the same is not under challenge in the present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition has rendered infructuous.

6. The respondent filed the reply on 6.8.2010, in which they did not disclose that th