A.K. Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who was working under the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, Chinsurah, had challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the order passed in the said proceeding directing the withholding of 25% of the pension payable to the petitioner after his retirement for a period of five years with effect from 1st December, 1991. The impugned order was passed on 20th November, 1991. Shortly the facts are that the petitioner retired from service as Head Clerk on 30th November, 1989. Just before his retirement on 17th October, 1989, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Thereafter, the Presenting Officer was appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, Chinsurah being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The proceedings continued from October, 1989 to 1991 and after the conclusion of the Enquiry a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20th November, 1991 was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, Chinsurah, wherein he has stated as follows "I have gone through the articles of charges, statement of P.Ws. the P.W. exhibits, the statement of D.Ws., the defence exhibits and also the report of the Enquiring Authority, along with other relevant papers. After applying the mind on all aspects of the proceedings including the fact that the Charged Officer has already retired from service, I order that 25% of the amount of pension payable to the Charged Officer be withheld for a period of 5 years with effect from 1.12.91. Copy of findings of the Enquiring Authority may be acknowledged. The Treasury Officer, Chinsurah, Hooghly, is informed accordingly."
(2.) No one has appeared when the matter was called on for hearing. No affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents.
(3.) In my view, the entire proceedings in this case are vitiated in law. The petitioner ceased to be a Government servant on the expiry of 30th November, 1989 when he retired from his service. Thereafter, the employer-employee relationship came to an end and no proceedings could have been continued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The only provision under which any proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement was under the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971. This has not been done in this case.;