“It was contended by Shri Sri Chand Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, the enquiry could be held even after respondent No. 2 had attained the age of superannuation, as he had agreed in this Court in the earlier petition that the enquiry could be made against him. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. There can be no gainsaying that after respondent No. 2 had retired no enquiry could legally be held against him. Merely this fact that some statement had been made by respondent No. 2 as was contended by Mr. Goyal would be no ground to hold that the enquiry that was held after the retirement of the respondent would be legal. Moreover, the impugned order was passed on December 8, 1970, dismissing respondent No. 2 with effect from April 15, 1965, which on the face of it, is contrary to law and as held by the learned Single Judge, could not legally be sustained. Thus viewed from any angle, we find that the order of dismissal passed by the appellant was bad in law and could not legally be sustained.”
