1 wp2218.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2218 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. T.M. Venjane holding for Mr. K.A. Kadam, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Hon for petitioner and Mr. T.M. Venjane holding for Mr. Kadam for respondent. The Industrial Court has found the order of suspension dated 28.07.2001 bad as no positive steps were taken in departmental enquiry to prove the alleged misappropriation and enquiry could not have been continued after his superannuation i.e. after 30.11.2009. It has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the judgment of Division Bench of Culcutta High Court in " Prabhasaknar Bardan V/s State of West Bengal and others" (2009 II CLR 149). The matter was heard Yesterday. 2. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi 2 wp2218.11 High Court reported at "ILR (2009) I Delhi 326" ( R.P. S. Panwar V/s Union of India and another), which states that the relationship continues even after the retirement and departmental action therefore can be continued. Its perusal however shows that it is because of provisions of Rule 9(2)(a) of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is settled position that in government employment where the service conditions are regulated by Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the departmental enquiry can be continued even after the retirement due to legal fiction envisaged therein. The said Judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court is not relevant in the present facts. 3. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence the present Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2218.11