THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.987 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant who is an employer filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal inter alia assailing the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19399/2000, dated 11-02-2004. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are that, the respondent herein who is the writ petitioner and who worked with the appellant as Marketing Officer filed the writ petition seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of gratuity and other benefits along with interest at 21%. There is no doubt with regard to the fact that the respondent retired as long back as in the year 1999 with an intimation that he will be responsible for any commissions and omissions. There appears to be some enquiry and later on a notice was given on 5-3-1998 claiming certain amounts, however, admittedly no enquiry was conducted. The learned Single Judge taking into account the checkered events, and especially, the factum of retirement such a long time back and no decision having been taken, held that absolutely there is no justification in withholding either the gratuity or the benefit for which the respondent is entitled to, and allowed the writ petition directing to compute and pay the said amounts expeditiously. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that having regard to the proceedings initiated by issuance of notice claiming certain amounts, which are recoverable from the respondent herein, there is no justification to issue such directions. These submissions were sought to be repelled on the ground that ultimately there is no decision finally to hold respondent as liable or otherwise. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is seen that except issuance of notice nothing is forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to have a final logical end or say in pursuance of the said notice in regard to any such recovery or liability of the respondent. Nothing as such has been fixed against him. In the absence thereof, it cannot be said that there is no possible explanation on behalf of the appellant to withhold the same. The petitioner has already retired from service and even otherwise as rightly pointed out the rules do not permit any initiation of departmental proceedings after the retirement of an employee, therefore, there is no merit for any such purported action after retirement. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the above appeal and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J Dt:14-07-2010 Grk