there is numberdispute that the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on september 1 1977 and charges were served on him on october 16 1978 after about a year of his retirement.
placing reliance on a decision of this companyrt in b.j.
the respondent challenged the validity of the governments order by means of a writ petition under article 226 of the companystitution before the high companyrt of bombay.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 573 of 1988 from the judgment and order dated 13.2.1987 of the bombay high companyrt in w.p.
enquiry into those charges was held and the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend himself.
the state of maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the high court.
a division bench of that court allowed the writ petition and quashed the state governments order dated december 4 1982 on the ground that the state government had numberauthority in law to take any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as he had already retired from service.
undisputably the proceedings against the respondent were initiated after the respondent ceased to be in service of the state government.
n. singhvi and a.k.
number 613 of 1984.
after his retirement the respondent was served with a charge sheet on october 16 1978 companytaining allegations of misconduct and negligence against him for the period he was in service.
bhasme for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by singh j. special leave granted.
on the companyclusion of the enquiry the state government issued orders on december 4 1982 reducing the amount of pension payable to the respondent by 50 per cent permanently under rule 188 of the bombay civil services rules.
gupta for the respondent.
m. khanwilkar and a.s.
